Chamber and committees

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

Thanks, convener. I am pleased to join you. I will speak to amendments 501 and 502, and I thank the cabinet secretary and the team for meeting me to discuss these amendments. It is helpful to be able to explain the purpose and, like Mr Ewing, I have had guidance on my amendments from tenant farming professionals.

Amendment 501 concerns a provision on an application to the tenant farming commissioner to inquire into a breach of the code of practice. I propose to expand the class of persons who can make a complaint to the commissioner when a breach of the code of practice is suspected. At the moment, a tenant farming commissioner can investigate only if a landlord or a tenant chooses to make a complaint. I would like to amend section 29(1) of the 2016 act by inserting:

“(c) is a near relative of a person mentioned in paragraph (a) ... or appears to the Tenant Farming Commissioner to represent the interests of landlords or tenants of agricultural holdings”.

This expansion to the persons who are able to make a complaint would include inserting the language of “near relative”, which means that a near relative could make an application to the tenant farming commissioner to initiate an inquiry into whether there has been a breach of the code of practice. The term “near relative” is defined in agricultural legislation, and I propose to allow ministers to determine the definition of “near relative”—whether that would include parents, siblings, brother-in-law and so on.

Single tenants can be reluctant to make a complaint if relationships are going poorly for the landlord and the tenant, and it is difficult to raise a concern, which can affect a tenant’s and their family’s mental health, which is why I propose adding the wording:

“is a near relative of a person mentioned in paragraph (a)”.

Proposed new paragraph (d) refers to a person who

“appears to the Tenant Farming Commissioner to represent the interests of landlords or tenants of agricultural holdings”.

Concerns are often raised by landlords and tenants—even multiple tenants who share the same landlord. Some tenants and landlords already raise concerns and seek advice from representative organisations, including the NFUS, SLE, the STFA and even the Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Institution. RSABI is a charity with the purpose of supporting farmers, including when support for mental health is a priority.

Expanding the class or type of people or organisations who are able to request the tenant farming commissioner to investigate poor practice or potential breaches of code, including near relatives, would allow the commissioner to step in to resolve issues more directly.

Amendment 502 would modify the 2016 act by inserting:

“Having determined in a report on an inquiry under section 33 that the code of practice has been breached, the Tenant Farming Commissioner may, by notice, impose a fine on the person that committed the breach.”

Examples of breaches that could be resolved by the tenant farming commissioner’s intervention and recommendation, rather than by proceeding to the Scottish Land Court, include disagreements that may be related to game management, management of leases and—

Given what the cabinet secretary has said and the willingness to meet me to further discuss, I will not move amendment 501.

Amendment 501 not moved.

Potentially. At the moment, those complaints may not be raised, so the amendment would give an opportunity for a near relative to raise a concern.

In my conversations about the issue, family members often recognise that there are challenges because tenants might not wish to raise concerns. If there is an absence of information or things that need to be clarified, I am happy not to press the amendment and to have further discussions about it. However, my understanding from the professionals I have spoken to is that, sometimes, it is necessary for other people to raise an issue, and amendment 501 would afford families the ability to support a tenant who might not wish to come forward on his or her own.

Let me go back to amendment 502, which would allow the tenant farming commissioner flexibility to intervene in proposing or requesting an investigation into any breach of a code that might be resolved more quickly and directly with intervention and recommendations—recommendations that will more likely lead to arbitration. Resolution could then be obtained more effectively, efficiently and in a more timely manner.

Intervention means that any disputes could be assessed and potentially resolved, incurring less cost, including, for example, when a breach of the code of practice is made. There would then be an opportunity for the breach to be remedied. Amendment 502 allows the commissioner to consider evidence of whether a person has committed a breach of the code of practice, whether it is a first-time breach and whether they have had the opportunity to remedy it and then failed to correct the breach.

The commissioner can then have regard to whether there have been previous failures or failures to comply with the code of practice. Finally, they could apply a sanction of a fine. In essence, amendment 502 provides the tenant farming commissioner with more teeth to support the landlord and the tenant and could provide a more balanced approach to ensure that good practice is followed.

That is the longest that I will speak on any of my amendments.

I have another really quick question, which is for Scott Robertson. You said that kids are allowed to play for their school teams now. Is that happening and why would anyone want to ban kids from playing for their own school team?

Thank you for your opening statement, Mr Waksman, which laid out what is happening. I was quite surprised to read that the petition was lodged in 2010. I am not sure whether David Torrance was on the Public Petitions Committee at that time—I know that he is a member of the current committee.

The language of tight cartels and terminating contracts at will is interesting. Will you give us an overview of the provisions of United Kingdom competition law that the SFA and the SPFL have violated?

Is there room for collaboration in order to alter the approach that is currently being taken under those rules?

You mentioned that four rule changes would need to be introduced. Can you tell us about those and how they might help to support youth football in Scotland?

I want to pick up on Nick Hobbs’s comment about wellbeing officers and how we do not really know how many there are or what they do. Is it more of a job on top of another job? Does it account for, say, two hours out of their six-hour day or whatever? Is there a ratio depending on the number of kids? After all, it sounds as if there are lots of young people in different academies. I am interested in finding out who does an assessment of wellbeing officers, what they do and how they support young people.

Brian Whittle talked about young people having fun playing football, but all of this reminds me of the draft in America. I lived in Los Angeles for 14 years and followed American football. It was all about business; it was all about money; it was all about commodity. How do we support the wellbeing of young people and assess the officers who are supposed to be helping them?