Chamber and committees

Will the member take an intervention?

18:00

Liam McArthur’s amendments would remove ministers’ powers to set regulations defining the training, qualifications and experience of the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner. As members understand, that is because such powers would be out of scope for this Parliament.

Therefore, should the bill ultimately pass, we face two options. Either Parliament agrees to Liam McArthur’s amendments, effectively outsourcing such important decisions to unelected UK officials, or Parliament does not agree to the amendments, which would mean that the legislation would be all but certain to end up in the Supreme Court.

To avoid any misunderstanding, I accept that the areas in question here are pro tempore indisputably reserved to Westminster. However, I also believe that it is not good lawmaking to draft laws to end up in the courts while issues of competence are settled. I therefore understand the motivations of those seeking to make many of the amendments and do not intend to stand in their way, but it is difficult to endorse those moves with much enthusiasm.

My concern is that we are being asked to pass legislation here without having any real idea of what the UK Parliament has in mind or how it intends to plug the holes in our own law. I have already mentioned a letter that was sent to members by former presidents of the royal colleges of physicians and surgeons to make clear their concerns about that. We cannot interrogate any of what might be in a future section 104 order, because it has yet to appear. In any case, such an order, by its very nature, receives limited parliamentary scrutiny.

I mention those things to point to the dilemma that has been created. In previous debates, as well as in this one, members have pointed to the fact that debate is central to discussion that we are having. This is not a constitutional debate, although it certainly engages issues around the constitution; it is a question about whether this Parliament should get to see complete legislation and the full implications of that legislation before it makes a decision.

21:45

Does the member agree that it is not only in this chamber that the concerns that he has rightly outlined are being expressed? In the past few weeks, members have had a letter from former presidents of colleges of physicians and surgeons, who say:

“This is an issue of huge concern. … it seems unconscionable to us that parliamentarians would be committing our profession to such a monumental change in responsibilities without complete clarity on what protection would be offered for those who, for reasons of conscience, would decline to be involved.”

I take it that that is a direct reference to the section 104 order.

I take it that I am an exception, because I am a member who lives on an island and who has raised such issues frequently. Does he also accept that, as much as we might agree on the problems that the ferry services have faced, yesterday’s important announcement about the replacement of the MV Lord of the Isles should be welcomed?

Will the member give way?

Some of the issues that I want to raise have been touched on, but I am interested in what Michael Bruce said about working with the agricultural sector and—to put words in his mouth—creating resilient landscapes.

I am interested to know more generally what people feel about the relationship with land managers—in my area, I would think of crofters in that context, but it applies to all sorts of land managers. I am also thinking specifically about how we manage the issue of muirburn, and how we retain a sense of responsibility and skill among all land managers in the sector for dealing with that issue, rather than passing on all the responsibility to agencies, which are—as we have heard—quite pressed. I would like to hear your thoughts about all that.

Finally, I am interested in the legal angle on muirburn as part of land management and how that can be managed in the future.

:We have talked around the issue of the extensive data that is out there and its importance in reassuring the public. My question is for Amy Jennings or Peter Pollard—or possibly others. Are the categories of the data being collected likely to change? Are there new areas of data gathering that will be necessary in the future and are there gaps in the current data? I am thinking of things that usually get attention such as in relation to culls, stocking mortalities and transport. I have no idea whether it is necessary, but will the data that is gathered, or the categories of data, change in the future?

:It does. Thank you.

:I am aware that the industry has been working to reduce antibiotic use—that might have been alluded to earlier. There have been instances of individual companies having to report and then re-report figures about levels of antibiotic use. Could any of you say a bit more about the direction of travel on antibiotic use and about what enforcement steps would normally follow any dispute about returns in that area?

11:00

:Is the platform live yet?