Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am not expecting unanimity, nor am I proposing in amendment 8 any sort of right of veto for stakeholders against the actions of ministers. It is simply a requirement to consult. The qualification “insofar as is practical” is a recognition that, in a fast-moving public health situation, ministers may require to act very quickly. I do not want to tie the hands of ministers entirely. However, given the experience that we have had over the past two years and the quite serious concern among members of the business community about the negative impact of regulations that were imposed on them without adequate consultation, I think that we should place an obligation on ministers to consult, in so far as it is practical to do so.

Finally, my amendment 9 relates to the Covid inquiry. I think that the cabinet secretary will give a statement to update Parliament on that inquiry this afternoon. The inquiry has just been established, and we have not yet had any opportunity to hear any evidence that has been presented to the inquiry or to listen to the view of the inquiry in terms of recommendations and lessons to be learned. It seems to me rather strange that we are rushing to legislate for future pandemics before we have learned the lessons of this one. Therefore, my amendment 9 seeks to delay implementation of the bill until such time as the Covid inquiry has concluded, so that we can see what lessons might be learned.

I support my colleague Brian Whittle’s amendments 4 and 5, and I think that he has made some fair points. I am very much in support of Alex Rowley’s amendment 1. In fact, if Mr Rowley had not lodged amendment 1, I would have lodged an amendment in similar terms. Mr Rowley made an eloquent case as to why the Henry VIII powers should be removed, and he gave us a helpful history lesson in relation to the powers of monarchs in that respect. I reiterate the point that I made in response to Mr Mason and Mr Fairlie. Although I welcome the Government amendments that restrict, to an extent, the operation of Henry VIII powers by the Government, the amendments do not remove those powers entirely. Again, this is an issue about putting power in the hands of ministers rather than in the hands of Parliament.

Regulations that are introduced by ministers—however qualified they are—can only be voted for or against by Parliament. There is no opportunity for Parliament to amend the regulations. That is why I believe that removing the Henry VIII powers is an essential move, so I will support amendment 1.

Although the Government amendments in the group do not go far enough for me, they are nevertheless an improvement on the bill as drafted, and I will be happy to support them.

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.

Mr Swinney will recall that a number of members who spoke in the stage 1 debate, including me, raised the issue of manses and other church properties, which often lie vacant for a year or more while the church seeks a new minister. Rather than allow the property to lie empty, the church will seek to let it on a private residential basis. The Church of Scotland, among others, expressed concern that, without a mandatory ground to allow it to recover possession, that would be too risky.

As Mr Swinney says, the matter could go to a tribunal, but there would be no guarantee that the property could be recovered when it is required for a new minister taking up office. I think that Mr Swinney said during the stage 1 debate that he would reflect on that. Does he have any more thoughts as to how that issue could be addressed? I fear that the unintended consequence could be that churches will just leave such properties lying empty, when they could be used to house families, even on a short-term basis.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that explanation. My concern, which I think has been expressed by the Church of Scotland, is that, although that might well be the case, there is no guarantee that a tribunal would reach that outcome. Therefore, the unintended consequence is likely to be that churches will just not take the risk of renting out such properties.

Let me just finish my sentence if I may, Mr Fairlie.

The Parliament has already demonstrated, as it did two years ago, that it can move very quickly in an emergency to pass legislation. The important point—this touches on the comments that Mr Rowley made a short time ago—is that progressing in that way allows Parliament at that point to amend legislation and Parliament as a whole to lodge amendments. That method of dealing with the law is not possible if we legislate in a way that passes to ministers the power to produce regulations that Parliament cannot amend. Although Parliament has the right to say yes or no to regulations—I welcome the cabinet secretary’s amendments that will strengthen Parliament’s power—it has no power to amend them. Making this a matter of primary legislation would put the power back into the hands of Parliament not just to vote yes or no, but to lodge amendments.

Good morning. I will follow up the convener’s questions to Dr Phin. I am interested to hear that your perspective has changed because you were working south of the border and moved north during the pandemic, so you have a double interest.

With regard to how effective the public health campaigns were, I remember that there was quite an effective slogan from the UK health department—“Hands. Face. Space”. I do not know whether that was your brainchild—no. However, in Scotland, we had FACTS. I am yet to find anybody who could tell me what “FACTS” stood for. Can you help me out? Can you remember what “FACTS” stands for?

Good morning, panel. Over the past two years, all the parliamentarians here will have experienced constituents writing in to express their views, including saying that Covid is a hoax, that it is all a conspiracy by the Government and that vaccinations are there to try and control the population, and usually linking to articles in obscure corners of the internet to back up their argument. I will put this question to Dr Dawn Holford first, because it is covered a bit in the paper that she submitted. What is the motivation for those who are actively spreading disinformation on the internet, which people pick up on?

Everybody else wants in so I ask you all to be quite brief.

I invite Callum Hood to comment and ask him to be fairly brief because we are running out of time.

I would like to bring in Stefan Webster to speak about Ofcom’s perspective. Throughout the pandemic, there were stages when Scotland and the rest of the UK were doing things at different times and the rules were changing. Therefore, people would watch the 6 o’clock news and hear a message from Chris Whitty or the UK Government saying one thing and then watch the Scottish news and hear something different from Nicola Sturgeon or Jason Leitch. Is there any evidence that that caused confusion for the public? Was that identified as a problem?