Chamber and committees

I am sure that it will be worth the wait.

I have a question for the witness from Public Health Scotland. I want to push on that point. In relation to building public trust and confidence and encouraging people to continue to follow the guidance as we move into the next stage, how important is proportionality? How important is it that the legislation matches the situation and the level of emergency and fear that people across the country feel?

It is for the witness from Public Health Scotland. Do you factor in how the public as a whole feel, how organisations feel and how decision makers feel if the legislation on the statute books is out of step with the perception of the risk and state of emergency that we are in?

For absolute clarity, could the lack of proportionality make the legislation unlawful?

But one faces a lower parliamentary hurdle than the other in terms of the scrutiny and the kind of process it has to go through.

In your view, the case for using that procedure would diminish over time and it would be less proportionate if you were planning in advance for an emergency. Is that a fair comment?

Do you think that there is a difference or a sort of sliding scale? Passing new emergency legislation requires the full parliamentary process. Does having a provision just to bring the legislation into force not lower the bar? Should we question whether that is proportionate for the scale of measures that the legislation enables. We are talking about pretty fundamental rights to education being removed. Is scrutinising the ability to bring it into force enough?

I would be interested, because there is obviously a different type of consultation. In effect, a member of the Parliament is relying on a different type of consent to bring something into force than they would need if they were putting the legislation on to the statute book and having it sit there. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that and anything more you could provide, but I do not want to push you if you do not feel comfortable. Anything from a colleague would be helpful.

Obviously, universities are independent institutions, but does the minister hope that, by this time next year, all universities will have moved forward and will offer that vital training?

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Jackson Carlaw makes a pertinent point. I think that that is one of the reasons why, as part of the awareness campaign this year, there has been a clear call for action through measures such as the “Worth more than 2 hours” campaign, which constituents have been in touch with me about. The campaign is about ensuring not only that front-line general practitioners receive more training and advice so that they can support those who ask for help, but that a future generation of doctors are equipped to identify the signs and symptoms of eating disorders. That will enable them to facilitate the type of early intervention that Emma Harper talked about, secure better outcomes and thereby avoid unnecessary pain and suffering, not just for individuals but—as has been said—for their families too. It is a huge burden for families to carry, in particular when they are struggling to access the level of support that they need.

There are examples of good practice, including at the University of Glasgow. I would be keen to hear from the minister about what has been done to ensure that such practice is replicated across all five Scottish medical schools, because that seems like a straightforward and clear ask. We have to remember that behind every one of the statistics that we hear in the debate, there are real people and families. In the past, they have included members of our own parliamentary community who have experienced the pain of this issue. Eating disorders can happen to anyone, and no one should be left to suffer alone.

I ask the minister whether we can hear more on what the working groups are doing to make real the promises that we make in the chamber. To anyone who is listening to the debate, I simply say: do seek advice, do seek help and do not suffer in silence, as there are a lot of organisations, charities and individuals out there who stand ready to help you.

Not at all. For completeness, I note that Beatrice Wishart co-convenes the group with us.

It is important to mention that the cross-party group on mental health has been looking at eating disorders. That is an issue that many people fail to consider when they talk about mental health, as they do not see it as part of the same remit and do not believe that eating disorders are at the same level of seriousness. We know from hearing about the mortality rates and the lived experience of many people just how wrong that assumption is, and it has to change if the services that support those with eating disorders are to change and fully meet the needs that exist.

Again, I pay tribute to Emma Harper for her persistence on the issue. Given its complexity, it is an area of policy and practice that requires persistence. We see the bravery of people such as Dennis Robertson and others who speak out on the issue, and they deserve champions in the Parliament.

More than 1 million people of all ages and backgrounds across the UK have an eating disorder. The condition can affect anyone—there is no one whom it cannot affect. We have already heard about the high mortality rates, which are the highest for any mental illness. That in itself should demand action.