���˿���

Thank you, convener. Hello, panel members. I have two questions. I will put the first question to Dr Jane Kellock and then Donald Macleod. Given the changes since the 2013 act was introduced, particularly the integration of health and social care and the proposed national care service, do you think that the act requires amendment?

I want to ask you about the equipment issue. Is the equipment not there or is it simply the case that it is not maintained, so it breaks?

Therefore we do not need SPICe to produce that data, because you say that you can produce it.

I declare that I am a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. I am gobsmacked by what I have heard. The issue is crying out for a work study to be done, to look at efficiency. It makes you wonder why we are not all over this. A work study should have been done, and one needs to be done with urgency. As Professor Din said, the entire pathway needs to be examined, so I am delighted that, as a committee, we are addressing the matter and treating it as important.

I have two questions on the theme of the barriers to meeting cancer waiting times. In its “NHS in Scotland 2023” report, Audit Scotland said:

“Meeting waiting times standards for cancer remains a priority, but performance against the 62-day standard is poor”.

Peter Hastie, you said:

“something is going badly wrong”.

What do you think are the main barriers to putting the wheels back on the bus, or—given that this has been an issue for a while—to putting them on the bus? We have talked about the fact that the surgeons just want to get in there and do their surgery. What are the other main barriers to meeting the waiting time standards?

So, overall, we need a Scotland-wide plan and we need to make sure that the kit is there and that it is properly maintained. I know that this may sound like a basic question, but in your view, what impact do longer waiting times have on outcomes for cancer patients?

I would like Labour and everybody else to reconsider for the sake of clarity. Amendment 51 is important for clarity and enforcement. If there is no proper signage, it will be very difficult to enforce, and leaving it up to the health boards is not good enough.

The financial memorandum states:

“There is no requirement in the Bill for signage to be displayed outside a protected premises, and there is no expectation at present for signage to be required.”

I remember that, when the minister gave evidence to the committee at stage 1, we had a discussion about signage and how it would be on-going. Amendment 51 seems to give sufficient flexibility and it is not particularly prescriptive or onerous. I also note that it includes regulation-making powers for Scottish ministers. That is why I encourage the committee to reconsider and review the issue and put signage in the bill.

I would like to ask a question. I welcome the spirit of what Gillian Mackay and the minister are saying about their willingness to engage on this important point. Are you open to looking at the issue with Rachael Hamilton and me? Do you have an open mind? How much wiggle room is there? Are you willing to look at the issue completely openly?

Thank you for that. It is important to go back to the substance of the committee’s report in that respect.

Like my colleague Rachael Hamilton, I welcome Gillian Mackay’s suggestion to engage with us on the issue. As she says, it is important to make the bill robust. I want to say a few words in advance of meeting Gillian Mackay with Rachael Hamilton.

The committee made it clear in paragraphs 7 and 22 of our stage 1 report that the legislation should be subject to regular and on-going review. We have just discussed how the timing might be different, so we could talk about that. I take the committee back to the reasoning around the recommendation, which was

“to ensure restrictions continue to be proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Bill as circumstances change over time”.

Legislation such as this seeks to address the balance of rights and the bill is about the balance of rights between different groups. The key point of amendment 58 is that regular post-legislative review is crucial. Building something in to make sure that it is robust is really important.

As I said, Rachael Hamilton and I welcome Gillian Mackay’s willingness to include the post-legislative review provision at stage 2, which is covered in amendment 39. My concern is that an initial review period of two years, followed by five-year increments, does not really go far enough towards meeting the committee’s recommendations in this regard, so when we meet I would like to test that further.

Amendment 58 calls for an annual review, which makes the provision more robust. It draws from the committee’s recommendations, as well as from section 8 of the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act (Northern Ireland) 2023, which comprehensively covers areas such as the effectiveness of the legislation in achieving its aims, as well as the impact on those who are engaged in protests and vigils, which we talked about earlier in the meeting.

Amendment 58 also seeks regular reporting on the number of arrests, prosecutions and convictions under the act, and on the act’s on-going compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998, which has been mentioned previously. It seeks input from key stakeholders such as Police Scotland, health boards and local authorities, and it gives Scottish ministers flexibility to consult in that regard.

It is important to enshrine in the bill a checklist of who the key stakeholders are. Those points are all covered by paragraphs 7 and 22 of the committee’s stage 1 report. I am not trying to be prescriptive, but I am trying to capture as much information as possible to ensure that the bill is effective over the longer term.

Given that Gillian Mackay has said that she is willing to meet Rachael Hamilton and me, I will not move amendment 58 but will instead seek to come up with a form of wording that is mutually agreeable.

Hello, Mr Dunne. There is strong support for the restrictions around packaging, especially given the alarming figure that around a quarter of 15-year-olds in Scotland are using vaping products. Therefore, will the vaping industry work with the Governments across the UK to ensure that changes in standardised packaging are adhered to?