Seòmar agus comataidhean

The fourth item on our agenda is an evidence session with witnesses from integration joint boards on their experiences of health and social care integration, all joining us remotely. I welcome: Stephen Brown, chief officer, Orkney integration joint board; Vicky Irons, chief officer, Dundee integration joint board; Judith Proctor, chief officer, Edinburgh integration joint board and chair, chief officer group; and Allen Stevenson, head of health and community care, chief social work officer of Inverclyde integration joint board. Good morning to you all. We will move straight to questions, led by Paul O’Kane.

We are not able to bring in Allen Stevenson yet as we are having issues with his connection. Paul O’Kane, perhaps you could move on.

Thank you. I will move on to questions from Stephanie Callaghan.

I thank our four panel members for their time.

In our next meeting, the committee will begin its scrutiny of the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill.

That concludes the public part of our meeting.

Welcome to the 28th meeting in 2022 of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. I have received no apologies for today’s meeting.

The first item on our agenda is to decide whether to take in private items 5 and 6, as well as certain items as required at our next meeting on 25 October. Do members agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

The next item on our agenda is consideration of a notification from the Scottish ministers for consent to a statutory instrument. The notification concerns provisions made to amend retained direct European Union law in various areas of food and feed law, including legislation on novel foods, food additives, enzymes and flavourings, genetically modified food and feed, feed additives, food contact materials and the hygiene of foodstuffs.

Under the protocol between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, the consent notification has been categorised as type 1, which means that the Scottish Parliament’s agreement is sought before the Scottish Government gives consent to the United Kingdom Government making secondary legislation in an area of devolved competence.

Before I ask members for their views on the instrument, I want to point out how little time—indeed, it is no time—we have been given for scrutiny of it. The instrument was laid very late for the Scottish Government, which has written to us to recommend that we consent and to say that it has no issues with it. However, there are still outstanding issues.

Our consent is asked for, as a Parliament and a committee. However, we have not had any notice or been allowed any time for scrutiny—we might have had a minister in front of us today but we are not able to do that. Also, we have flagged up that there is an outstanding consultation on the issue that is not due to report until today, so there may be recommendations from or issues thrown up by that consultation of which we do not have sight.

We do not want to hold up anything that will fix some of the issues in the area that the instrument covers, but I put on record my severe dissatisfaction with the situation in which we find ourselves.

Do colleagues have any comments?

Okay—we will do that. Is the committee content that the provisions that are set out in the notification should be included in the proposed UK SI?

Members indicated agreement.

Our first substantive item on today’s agenda is the independent review into racism in Scottish cricket. I welcome Gordon Arthur, the interim chief executive of Cricket Scotland, and Forbes Dunlop, the chief operating officer of sportscotland.

We have an hour for questions, and we have a lot of questions on the issues highlighted in the report “Changing The Boundaries—The Plan4Sport Independent Review into Racism in Scottish Cricket”, as well as issues that have been highlighted by the very brave individuals who have come forward. I am sure that anyone watching this will have seen that.

My question is for Gordon Arthur. When such things come into the public domain and hit the headlines, it is often the case that a number of people feel that they want to come forward. There was a great deal of work in engaging with people who had issues as part of the report but, since the report has been published, have more people come forward? What do you say to anybody who is involved in cricket in Scotland now if they have not come forward yet but want to raise issues to give them the courage to do so? How can they be confident that their concerns will be taken seriously and that they will not be subjected to some of the terrible things that we have heard that the people who came forward before were subjected to?

I have a question for Mr Dunlop about the wider implications for sport in Scotland. As I said, the report has come off the back of whistleblowers and many complaints over many years that have not been dealt with appropriately. Things should not have had to come to a head as a result of the bravery of individuals.

What are your reflections on potential actions for other sports in Scotland? Cricket Scotland is in the spotlight, and rightly so, but there might be similar issues across sport in Scotland. What is sportscotland doing about that?

I go back to my earlier question about referrals. People obviously came forward during the writing of the report and since then. Is it fair to say that their cases have not been investigated yet and that that process is not under way? That seems to be what I am getting from you. You have talked about all the important actions that need to take place structurally, at a high level—the policies and governance that need to be put in place. Where are we with the actual nuts and bolts of investigating all the allegations that people have made? What communication has there been with the people who have come forward to let them know about the process that they will be involved in?