Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. We have been talking about triggers, targets and flexibility in this framework legislation. Yesterday’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee heard Professor Sir Gregor Smith talking about future pandemic preparedness. Avian influenza came into that, as did invasive species—for instance, issues around diseases and viruses that mosquitoes carry. Gregor said that the chief veterinary doctors are now working with human doctors to look at how we need to be flexible and dynamic in order to plan for whatever is in the future. I am thinking about that as one way in which the bill is about being flexible, dynamic and able to adapt, especially given the fact that I sit on the HSCS Committee as well as this committee, and there is a lot of crossover in our thinking about how we support climate change issues.

Most of what I was going to ask about in my two questions on the habitats regulations and the fact that we have, unfortunately, exited the EU, which is where we are right now, has already been covered, so I will be agile and flexible in my questions.

I am seeking to understand something, and you can correct me if I am wrong, minister. Will this enabling power, the need for which arises from our EU exit, allow us to look at the legislative gap that that has created and amend or create any regulations to enhance environmental standards and meet our biodiversity and climate targets?

I would like a quick clarification, minister. I cannot see how it would be beneficial to exclude any experts from the ability to manage what everybody recognises is a problem with different species of deer, whether the area is urban, periurban, rural, highland or lowland. We have challenges that we need to meet, so I cannot see that excluding anybody would be beneficial, and I propose that we do not exclude NatureScot.

I have section 3(c) of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill in front of me, which concerns the purpose of ensuring consistency with other regimes. It has been suggested to us that that would open up a “race to the bottom” with other regimes. Stakeholders have expressed concerns about that purpose, but my understanding is that it relates to alignment with environmental outcome reports in England, for example.

Could the power in part 2 be used to make substantial revisions to the Scottish EIA regime to align it with environmental outcome reports? I am asking about the purpose of ensuring consistency and compatibility.

A seven-year period is covered in the Skye house documentary. You have talked about unannounced visits and other visits. How many visits are we talking about, especially if you go back to investigate three months later? Do the visits involve speaking to the staff and the teams on the ground in each of the three ward areas? I am curious as to why the culture—which, as the documentary showed, evolved into something quite disturbing—was not picked up on sooner.

I know that there are complexities around planning, whether that is for flu or other potential disease pathogens. We have talked about various reports, such as the module 1 report, the respiratory action plan and the one that recommended the Scottish pandemic sciences partnership. Work is under way, but are you confident that that is a process of simplification?

I do not want to cause shock or alarm to anybody, but how do the scientists who work with humans in tracing the genomics of pathogens and viruses work with our veterinarians, for instance? We have recently had issues with Schmallenberg virus and bluetongue, and there has been foot and mouth in Germany, so I am thinking about the zoonotic aspects of avian influenza, which Sir Gregor has mentioned. How do we work with other scientists to track and trace the potential pathogens from ticks, fleas and other wee beasties?

We are a few years down the line from the Covid pandemic, and I am sure that we all have personal experiences and remember things about it, including what could have happened or what could have been done. During the pandemic, as a registered nurse, I was giving vaccines as well as being an MSP. I am therefore interested to know the detail of any progress that has been made in implementing the United Kingdom Covid-19 inquiry’s module 1 recommendations that the emergency preparedness and resilience structures should be simplified. I see that Sir Gregor is nodding.

If you were to be given more powers, what powers would you want to have?

I had some thoughts about the work that I have done previously on eating disorders. I know that the Mental Welfare Commission did an exercise to map eating disorder services in Scotland. We saw an increase in the number of people assessed and diagnosed with eating disorders during Covid. We have had lots of discussions about that and there has been additional funding from the Scottish Government. The eating disorder charity Beat has been really good at engaging with and supporting people through its activities online.

I would be interested to hear about any updates or recommendations following the mapping exercise. What would you say needs to be the number 1 priority in, for instance, referrals, given the eating disorder services that we have across Scotland? For example, in Dumfries and Galloway and in the Borders there are on-the-ground specialists, but sometimes people then need to be referred to Skye house.