Chamber and committees

It was the biggest, but I have since been corrected, as there is apparently now a bigger one in Holland.

I press amendment 4.

Will the Deputy First Minister take an intervention?

The point is that, especially around health, somebody has to gather and assess information and it should not be ministers who do that. You would rely, specifically, on your CMO to gather that information. Ultimately, when assessing a threat from, as you said, a multitude of potential inputs, surely it should be your CMO who advises you on the gathered evidence.

I am slightly concerned about your argument. God forbid that we have to go through the same thing again, but we must ensure that we do not leave any child behind in their education. We have been through the pandemic, so we understand the pitfalls and the issues. Surely agreeing to Stephen Kerr’s amendment would encourage the Government to work with local authorities to ensure that there are routes by which such devices get into the hands of those who require them.

Does Mr Fraser agree that the whole point of amending the proposed legislation is to allow for flexibility, as we do not know what is coming down the track and that, if the bill is passed and we cannot amend it, that will constrain our ability to approach whatever is coming down the track?

Good morning, everyone. I have only a couple of amendments in the group. The first one, amendment 4, is quite simple. I would like to understand who determines what constitutes “significant harm”, under section 1 of the bill. It is important for all MSPs and the general public that we understand that it is a medical decision, so it seems logical to me that the decision about what “presents … significant harm” to public health should be made by the chief medical officer. All I am asking is that that be inserted in the bill and that the chief medical officer have that role.

My other amendment, which is amendment 5, relates to what happened when we introduced the coronavirus emergency legislation. Obviously, we were unable to determine that legislation’s unintended consequences for other health issues. We are starting to understand a little better the other health issues that have happened because of lockdown and our need to focus on the coronavirus. Cancer is often discussed in that regard, and we also discuss the impact on elective surgery.

Through amendment 5, I am looking for a balance to be struck between taking decisions that I hope we never have to take and the impact on long-term health risks, because we now have a baseline that we understand. There is a balance to be struck between long-term health risks and taking action against an immediate health threat. I am asking that the Scottish ministers consider the health impacts in the round, rather than just the health risk at the time when they take their decisions.

I move amendment 4.

I listened to the cabinet secretary with interest, and I appreciate his consideration of the amendments. I think that the person who decides what presents a significant and immediate health risk once evidence is gathered should be somebody with significant medical experience. All that we are trying to do with amendment 4 is ensure that the chief medical officer has a role in determining what presents a significant harm to public health. I cannot see why that would be an unreasonable ask.

With regard to amendment 5, the word “consideration” is important, because we are trying to ensure that there is a balance between the impact that the regulations could have on long-term health matters and the need to deal with a potential threat. One of the lessons that we have learned from Covid is that there are significant long-term health issues, and those should always be taken into account when making a decision. If we do not accept that consideration should be given to that aspect, we are saying, in essence, that the Government does not need to consider long-term health risks in addressing these issues. I hear that the cabinet secretary is prepared to explore the matter further, but I think that my amendments are entirely reasonable.

I will support Mr Rowley’s amendment 1, given the extreme importance of the principle—to use his word—with which I concur. As Murdo Fraser said, the Government’s amendments are a step forward and, although they do not go as far as we would like, we will support them. I will also support the amendments from Mr Fraser and from Mr Simpson, who made his points eloquently, although he will not press amendment 12.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

I am grateful.

Having listened with great interest to what the cabinet secretary has said, and having listened to the discussion between Fulton MacGregor and Graham Simpson, I have to say that we should be thinking about this from the victim’s perspective. If they take the significant step of reporting a crime, it is entirely reasonable for them to expect to be kept informed of any progress. In fact, it is more likely that few victims would want an opt-out clause or system because they did not want to understand or know what happened to the accused person. It is entirely reasonable to have a system that informs a victim of such an outcome, and I cannot for the life of me understand why you would not put one in place, cabinet secretary.