The committee has raised an issue about the accessibility of data, and comparisons have been made with Norway’s fish health reports. I appreciate the point that you have made about resources and so on, but could more be done to make data available in a single accessible source?

Some of my questions have been touched on, so I will not labour the point. The Government committed to introducing statutory guidance under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. What progress has there been on that? What is the timetable? Who is involved?

As I alluded, people regularly raise the issues with me, as I am sure they do with you, specifically in the Western Isles. A particular issue has arisen in Uist, where people have come to me—and, I am sure, to you—to comment on the impact of one species: greylag geese, which are not merely making agriculture difficult but are imminently threatening the viability of traditional forms of agriculture.

Close cropping and the use of seed types that have been used on Uist for the last 2,500 years might simply not be available in a few years’ time if something is not done to deal with the rising number of greylag geese. As I have said, I very much welcome the fact that funding exists, but are you, as an organisation, alive to the imminent concern in some places about the very viability of agriculture?

Thank you. [.]

To pick up on some of what has been said, I note that the goose management policy review described how the management schemes were due to come to an end in 2023. Since then, there has obviously been very welcome funding that has continued the schemes. I realise that there is a limit to how far ahead you can look, but, in the future, how much can or should we plan around a sustained and consistent approach to this environmental issue? I realise that, inevitably, funding will run from year to year, so how can we move forward in a sustainable way?

On the point about thinking ahead, this is an unusual example of a shared interest between crofters and environmentalists, because the landscape that is provided by crofting or traditional low-intensity agriculture is the environment that is needed by the bird species in which your organisation also takes an interest. I know that, as an organisation, you do this, so will you say more about how you intend to build that useful coalition?

One of the pilot evaluations was on consenting. What specific changes have been made as a result of that? How will you measure success from a community perspective—that is, how communities benefit—and not just from the perspective of applicants?

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 appreciate that I have not given Mr Briggs much time to develop his argument, but many members will, like me, sympathise with the point that he makes about ensuring that professionals can opt out. Does his amendment 142 stray into reserved areas? How does he answer the question about the bill’s competence?