���˿���

Lastly, a number of the points that have been raised today are—rightly—legal and technical. We know that Scotland does not sit in a vacuum and that ecocide law is moving quite quickly. EU member states must have in place the environmental crime directive by May next year. Who knows which of us, around this table, will still be in the Scottish Parliament then.

We will see quite a shift in the EU and in many other countries around the world. There are also the cases that are being brought before the International Criminal Court for consideration. What message would it send if Scotland passed the bill? Equally, if we did not pass the bill at stage 1, what would that say not just to the people of Scotland but to people around the world who look to us for leadership?

That is helpful and clear. That response shows that our committees are very effective in doing their scrutiny. I will be able to address many of those points next week.

On penalties, you will be aware that there is provision in the bill for orders for compensation, which may include costs of remediation or mitigation. We know that public bodies have raised concerns about resources, as have communities. On the polluter-pays principle, a strong thread is coming through the consultation that, if an accused is convicted of ecocide, there should be a mechanism for them to compensate the victims of ecocide. Do you think that that is a positive part of the bill? Is there anything that you would want to change in that regard?

Thank you. I just thought that I would mention it.

I thank committee members for all their robust questions. Before I ask the cabinet secretary a couple of questions, I thank the Scottish Government for its open-minded approach to ecocide law. It is an emerging area of international and domestic law, and it is good to hear that the Scottish Government wants to play its part in it in a serious way.

What I have heard today, cabinet secretary, is your desire for the law on ecocide to deal with the most severe offences and for the bill to provide additionality, and you have mentioned many times the need for clearer synergy between existing regulations and the law on ecocide, if the bill is passed.

I have looked at some of the responses from planning authorities and other stakeholders that were received in recent days. It strikes me that there is a lot of support for the general principles of the bill but that there is a need for clarity, reassurance and, as some have said, statutory guidance. Do you believe that, perhaps in your discussions with the planning minister, there is a need to consider what additional guidance could sit with the bill to give reassurance to decision makers that ecocide law is not about being anti-business or anti-development but about taking a pro-responsibility approach and ensuring that we are protecting nature in Scotland, reducing pollution and protecting the people of Scotland in the process?

I want to comment briefly on PE1871, which was lodged by my constituent Karen McKeown. I have been working with Karen for several years, including on this petition, and I again pay tribute to her.

I am grateful for the work that the committee has done. Its health-themed scrutiny with the cabinet secretary was really good, because we want to look at things in a joined-up way. In her letter of 18 November, Karen McKeown has highlighted to the committee that some progress has been made; after all, we cannot sit here as ���˿��� and say “Everything is terrible” all the time. I agree with what Karen has said, and I welcome the fact that

“80% of staff in Lanarkshire have completed Mental Health Carer Aware training”.

That is really good, although we are still seeing a crisis across Scotland.

I must challenge the cabinet secretary’s claim that there is a focus on prevention. That might be the intention, but the practice is somewhat different. Just at the weekend, I was listening to the Scottish Police Federation talk about the huge demand on front-line police officers to provide a mental health crisis response. That situation is nothing new, but it is getting worse.

Constituents are telling us that there is an overreliance on the police; that more and more people are having to find money to pay for private treatment, even when they cannot really afford it; and that although the NHS wants to deliver prevention and early intervention, it is still bogged down in having to deal with crisis. It just feels as though there is more still to be done. We now have another new minister; I welcome Tom Arthur to his post, and it would be good to hear directly from him, as Minister for Social Care and Mental Wellbeing, about the fresh ideas that he is bringing to the table.

Again, on behalf of Karen McKeown and for everyone bereaved by suicide, I want them to know that the Parliament is listening. We know that these deaths are preventable if the right action and resources are in place.

Yes, thank you, and thank you to the committee for all your work, and especially for the visit to University hospital Wishaw NICU.

Dr Wardle, thank you for your written evidence and your oral evidence today. To put that in context, are you able to explain for the committee’s benefit whether you or your executive committee members have visited the site at Wishaw or Glasgow, or indeed the other units that we are discussing today?

Thank you—that is helpful. It reinforces what has been my position all along, which is that the decisions need to be informed by people who work in the local services and those who have used local services—they need to have a seat at the table.

Dr Wardle, you are a member of the British Association of Perinatal Medicine, and you clearly have the best interests of patients and your members at heart. Is it regrettable that no one from NHS Lanarkshire had a seat at the table and was able to ask questions and inform the decision, when clinicians from Glasgow and elsewhere were involved? To have robust decision making, should there have been representation from NHS Lanarkshire?

Your clinical expertise is valued and appreciated, but we have had five or six co-chairs, people with national experience and people from outside Scotland, but no one from Lanarkshire.

But they have not made decisions. They said that they tried to do the right thing by trying not to prejudice decisions because they felt that they had an interest as one of the units, but it looks like there has not been consistency around other people’s decisions.

On the—