Chamber and committees

I am not going to take those patronising comments and the emotional blackmail from the cabinet secretary, because no one doubts what is in his heart and his compassion, but this is about competence. Why has there been no proper workforce planning? That is what people were asking during the by-election campaign, and that is what they are asking as we face the polls next year.

I admit that I have some skin in the game because, today, my daughter successfully completed her first year as a medical student, and my son-in-law is a resident doctor. We are not making these things up. People are coming into the healthcare profession because they care, but the opportunities are not there—that is the reality. [Interruption.] The cabinet secretary can chunter away all he likes, but we need solutions.

One of the things that we heard clearly on doorsteps during the by-election campaign is that people are not going to stand for the Government downgrading the neonatal unit at University hospital Wishaw. That is why Davy Russell was elected. The staff have been ignored; the families have been ignored. The cabinet secretary can shake his head—I will take an intervention, if he wishes to make one. That is the absolute denial of an award-winning service for the most vulnerable, the sickest and the smallest babies in the country. Babies in Lanarkshire should not be sent away to Aberdeen for critical care at the most vulnerable time in their lives. That is the reality. That is not a UK Government problem. It is the responsibility of the Scottish Government, and we are not going to apologise for bringing these arguments to the chamber.

I am really interested in the points that Tim Eagle is making. He said a moment ago that perhaps the Government should have targeted those who do not produce land management plans.

Yes. How would the Government know who had produced a plan and who had not?

I agree.

I will come in now, convener. I am not surprised that people want to contribute to this part of our scrutiny, because the land management plans are an important part of the bill and we took a lot of evidence on them at stage 1.

I take issue with the way in which Tim Eagle has framed the issue. On the one hand, we are hearing about the benefits of land management plans and the fact that many landowners, especially larger landowners, already make them, but we are also hearing that it is burdensome and could be very expensive. We did not really get evidence at stage 1 that backed up the suggested higher costs of £15,000. There is a contradiction in Tim Eagle’s arguments that, on the one hand, land management plans are good and lots of people do them but, on the other hand, we do not want them to be in the legislation.

I agree that we have to take care that land management plans do not become overly prescriptive. I do not think that that is the Scottish Government’s intention, but I will leave that to the cabinet secretary. However, does the convener agree that the benefits of land management plans have been well argued in our scrutiny? This is about improving accountability and transparency and, as Mark Ruskell says, engaging with communities, which can add value to the process for everyone.

No—sorry, I mean yes.

I support Jackie Baillie’s amendments and the other amendments in the group. This has been a long time coming and it is really important that we get it right.

I join colleagues in paying tribute to Anne Duke’s family, including Campbell Duke, who is in the gallery and is one of my constituents from East Kilbride, and to members of the care home relatives Scotland group, including Cathie Russell and Alison Leitch, who are also in the gallery. This has been their fight, and it has been a fight for all the people in Scotland who did not have a voice during the pandemic. We hear a lot about having to learn the lessons of Covid-19. The care home relatives Scotland group has had, I think, more than 150 meetings with the Scottish Government. Its members have made Scotland proud, and we all owe them a debt of thanks. [Applause.]

There have been delays in getting here, but it is right that we get the details right, so I listened with interest to the points that Brian Whittle and Sandesh Gulhane made. This has always been about human rights, dignity, love, human connection and all that was lost during the pandemic. No one ever dismissed concerns about safety, but what happened during the Covid years was unsafe and destroyed people’s mental health. People such as Anne could not have time with their families in their final days of life. I listened to Natasha Hamilton, Anne’s daughter, on the radio at 6.45 this morning, before I came to work, and she made a very strong case for Anne’s law to be passed.

There has always been cross-party work in the Parliament on the issue, including by Paul McLennan, Miles Briggs, Alex Cole-Hamilton, Gillian Mackay and many others, and the Government has a mandate, because Anne’s law was a very prominent promise in the Scottish National Party’s 2021 manifesto.

However, today is not a day for politics; it is about getting Anne’s law over the line. I remind colleagues of what I said in the chamber back in February 2021:

“I hope that we get to a place where the Parliament can unite and support Anne’s law, which would ensure that people never again have to spend a year in isolation without access to their loved ones.”—[Official Report, 16 February 2021; c 56.]

I hope that today is the day that we can give effect to Anne’s law and learn those lessons.

In an earlier discussion with Mark Ruskell, Mr Lumsden made reference to net zero. I hear the distinction that he makes between public interest and community interest and his point that they might not add up to the same thing. However, in the current climate, some politicians use slogans such as “net stupid zero” and there is a lot of misinformation flying around.

Does Mr Lumsden agree that it is really important that decisions are rooted in evidence and in science, and that sometimes community campaigns can be distorted because of misinformation? I hear the points that he is making, but does he recognise the concerns of some decision makers that, although sometimes community voices can be quite loud, they do not always reflect the public interest and the genuine community interest?

The proposed ecocide (prevention) (Scotland) bill would make it a criminal offence to cause widespread, long-term or irreversible environmental damage, with penalties of up to 20 years in prison for individuals and unlimited fines for organisations. Ecocide law was pioneered by trailblazing Scottish lawyer the late Polly Higgins. The EU and many countries worldwide are acting to deter and punish such devastating crimes, and this is Scotland’s time to act. Does the First Minister agree with the bill’s aims? Does he welcome this vital opportunity for Scotland to become the first UK nation to criminalise ecocide?

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to maintain its policy aim of keeping pace with the EU on environmental protection. (S6F-04140)