Seòmar agus comataidhean

Gillian McElroy, it strikes me that that kind of evolving situation would create issues for the organisation that you look after.

The information evolved, so what was right at the start of the pandemic became wrong as our knowledge improved. Initially, a simple thing like wearing a mask was not proved to have an impact, then it was proved to have an impact. That was difficult for somebody like me, who is not in a vulnerable category, so how difficult was it for people who are clinically vulnerable to accept that kind of change? How could Government change its approach and what lessons can we learn to make the messaging clearer?

I am afraid that that question is for Dr Witcher again.

I am not a silver medallist myself.

As the convener alluded to in his question, what people often share with me is the lack—or the feeling of a lack—of consultation with local communities, as well as their being bullied and steamrollered. In addition, even when the council declines to give planning permission, the decision is often and routinely overturned by the Scottish Government. There is just a lack of connection between local communities and the planning decision itself.

With regard to Mr Ewing’s point, communities have to benefit. The current situation has been described to me as the energy being taken on motorways away from where it is generated and into the central belt, leaving the communities where it is generated running on B roads. It is a very good analogy. It is extremely important that communities feel engaged and that they benefit, which brings us to the point that has been discussed about community shared ownership and whether it should be made mandatory.

I was interested in Mr Ewing’s questions, which I want to follow up on, about using the planning process to encourage wind farm operators to ensure benefit to the local community. Andy Kinnaird responded by highlighting the fact that planning decisions relate to the use of land. Surely the use of land requirement is there for the benefit of the community at large, so I do not see how the two can be divorced. If planning applications were passed, or not, depending on whether there was a shared community benefit element to the proposal, that would surely encourage wind farm operators to follow that route.

It was the biggest, but I have since been corrected, as there is apparently now a bigger one in Holland.

Thank you very much, convener. I would just start by getting the committee to recognise that I represent the South Scotland region, which has, as my postbag reflects, a high propensity of wind farms. I was very interested in the question of the 50MW limit, given that we have Whitelee wind farm, which is the second biggest in Europe and sits just down the road from your constituency, convener, and up the road from mine. It is therefore obviously perfectly feasible to—

The point is that, especially around health, somebody has to gather and assess information and it should not be ministers who do that. You would rely, specifically, on your CMO to gather that information. Ultimately, when assessing a threat from, as you said, a multitude of potential inputs, surely it should be your CMO who advises you on the gathered evidence.

I am slightly concerned about your argument. God forbid that we have to go through the same thing again, but we must ensure that we do not leave any child behind in their education. We have been through the pandemic, so we understand the pitfalls and the issues. Surely agreeing to Stephen Kerr’s amendment would encourage the Government to work with local authorities to ensure that there are routes by which such devices get into the hands of those who require them.

I listened to the cabinet secretary with interest, and I appreciate his consideration of the amendments. I think that the person who decides what presents a significant and immediate health risk once evidence is gathered should be somebody with significant medical experience. All that we are trying to do with amendment 4 is ensure that the chief medical officer has a role in determining what presents a significant harm to public health. I cannot see why that would be an unreasonable ask.

With regard to amendment 5, the word “consideration” is important, because we are trying to ensure that there is a balance between the impact that the regulations could have on long-term health matters and the need to deal with a potential threat. One of the lessons that we have learned from Covid is that there are significant long-term health issues, and those should always be taken into account when making a decision. If we do not accept that consideration should be given to that aspect, we are saying, in essence, that the Government does not need to consider long-term health risks in addressing these issues. I hear that the cabinet secretary is prepared to explore the matter further, but I think that my amendments are entirely reasonable.

I will support Mr Rowley’s amendment 1, given the extreme importance of the principle—to use his word—with which I concur. As Murdo Fraser said, the Government’s amendments are a step forward and, although they do not go as far as we would like, we will support them. I will also support the amendments from Mr Fraser and from Mr Simpson, who made his points eloquently, although he will not press amendment 12.

Good morning, everyone. I have only a couple of amendments in the group. The first one, amendment 4, is quite simple. I would like to understand who determines what constitutes “significant harm”, under section 1 of the bill. It is important for all MSPs and the general public that we understand that it is a medical decision, so it seems logical to me that the decision about what “presents … significant harm” to public health should be made by the chief medical officer. All I am asking is that that be inserted in the bill and that the chief medical officer have that role.

My other amendment, which is amendment 5, relates to what happened when we introduced the coronavirus emergency legislation. Obviously, we were unable to determine that legislation’s unintended consequences for other health issues. We are starting to understand a little better the other health issues that have happened because of lockdown and our need to focus on the coronavirus. Cancer is often discussed in that regard, and we also discuss the impact on elective surgery.

Through amendment 5, I am looking for a balance to be struck between taking decisions that I hope we never have to take and the impact on long-term health risks, because we now have a baseline that we understand. There is a balance to be struck between long-term health risks and taking action against an immediate health threat. I am asking that the Scottish ministers consider the health impacts in the round, rather than just the health risk at the time when they take their decisions.

I move amendment 4.

Does Mr Fraser agree that the whole point of amending the proposed legislation is to allow for flexibility, as we do not know what is coming down the track and that, if the bill is passed and we cannot amend it, that will constrain our ability to approach whatever is coming down the track?