Chamber and committees

I will, if the member is really quick, because time is tight.

Good morning. I have been listening carefully, and I appreciate colleagues’ thoughtful and respectful contributions so far. My amendments 12 and 13 are directly linked. Amendment 12 allows the introduction of amendment 13. My amendments seek to allow registered medical practitioners to consult other health and social care professionals, such as nurses, carers and social workers, when assessing whether a person has made a declaration voluntarily and without coercion.

I remind colleagues that I am still a registered nurse. The proposal was informed by engagement over summer recess with constituents and medical professionals working in end-of-life and palliative care. I met the Royal College of Nursing over the summer, and again recently, and I met the Scottish Association of Social Work. The medical professionals raised concerns that non-medical professionals often have more frequent and meaningful contact with individuals nearing the end of life and may be better placed to detect subtle signs of coercion or distress. I acknowledge what Bob Doris said about people feeling that they are a burden.

Originally, my amendments aimed to strengthen safeguards and promote a multidisciplinary approach, ensuring that assessments are thorough and person centred. Acknowledgement was made of concerns around the wording, particularly regarding the liability, responsibility and training of professionals, such as registered nurses, to be accountable for assessing coercion, whether overt or subtle. I am aware of the potential cost implications in that approach.

My amendments are therefore presented as probing amendments, and I am willing to work with the member in charge ahead of stage 3 to redefine the language or change it if necessary.

I think so—I had finished.

It has been pointed out to me that, because of the requirement to train health professionals—whether they are carers, registered nurses or any other people who are entering someone’s home—they would need to be provided with education. I do not know the direct costs, but I understand that that would potentially cause a cost burden under the member’s bill. I am happy for amendments 12 and 13 to be probing amendments for discussion and to hear what the member has to say about the issue.

The future farming investment scheme has shown that there is an appetite across Scotland’s agricultural sector to invest in sustainability, productivity and resilience. The Opposition is conveniently overlooking the fact that the Scottish Government provided more than £21 million to assist with that. How will the grant awards that were made benefit Scottish agriculture? Does the minister agree that the lack of a fair multi-annual funding settlement from the United Kingdom Government represents—[Interruption.]

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will finish my final sentence. Does the minister agree that the lack of a fair multi-annual funding settlement from the UK Government represents the biggest impediment to our ability to increase our support for and investment in Scottish agriculture?

Amendment 347, in my name, relates to the role of the tenant farming commissioner in preparing codes of practice to encourage and promote good practice in the sector. I thank the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association for all the support and advice that I have been given in relation to the bill ahead of stage 2 and stage 3.

The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 currently includes an illustrative list of topics that the tenant farming commissioner may make provision for in the code of practice. My amendment seeks to add two topics to that list. The first relates to the resumption process, which is relevant to both agricultural holdings and small holdings. In the context of the resumption process, a landlord may seek to resume land for specific purposes, such as building houses, roads or infrastructure, or for environmental or conservation projects. I highlight that so that folks are clear about what “resumption” means and how it relates to my amendment.

The second part of my amendment relates to the process whereby a landlord of a 1991 act tenancy terminates a tenancy through what is known as an incontestable notice to quit, which is the formal notice that is served by a landlord to terminate an agricultural tenancy. Unlike a general, or unqualified, notice to quit, an incontestable notice is based on specific legal grounds and does not allow the tenant to automatically challenge it by serving a counter-notice. As the discussions on the amendments in this group demonstrate, such notices can be contentious.

There is widespread anecdotal evidence that codes of practice are not being followed. Currently, however, the tenant farming commissioner can investigate only if a formal complaint is made by a landlord or a tenant. The STFA has asked me to raise the issue and to ask whether the cabinet secretary would respond to the STFA’s request to keep under review the ability of the tenant farming commissioner to investigate breaches of the code of practice in a self-appointed way if the commissioner has reason to believe that codes of practice are not being followed. It would be appreciated if the cabinet secretary would comment on that in her closing remarks.

Again, the purpose of the amendment is to modify the illustrative list of matters in section 27 of the 2016 act that the tenant farming commissioner may make a provision about in a code of practice. Codes of practice play an important role in this area, and would be of great assistance to tenants and landlords alike. I ask members to support amendment 347.

Thanks, Presiding Officer.

I thank Douglas Ross for his intervention. If we are looking at potential stage 2 amendments, that might be something that the member can address, in order to clarify what the concerns about NatureScot are. Any member could take that forward if they so choose.

Stakeholders expressed concern about the powers that would be applied. The committee recommends that the criteria for intervention under proposed new section 6ZB of the 1996 act should be clearly set out in the revised deer code, which should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Transparency and collaboration are key. Deer managers have built trust through voluntary efforts, and we must preserve that relationship. Clear guidance, robust data collection, especially in lowland areas, and inclusive decision making will be essential.

We have heard about the promotion and consumption of venison and combined venison and pork products, which is already under way in some areas, and about good examples of that taking place in primary schools on Jura. I believe that NHS Dumfries and Galloway is also adding venison products to its menus.

I will quickly address the process for establishing new national parks. The bill proposes reforms to the aims and governance of national parks. Although I support those changes, in my South Scotland region, the experience from the Galloway national park proposals, which did not proceed, highlights the need for a more inclusive and transparent process. Strong local feelings for and against the proposal were expressed, and concerns were raised about land use restrictions and governance, and the fact that Dumfries and Galloway is a high food-producing and economically important area in the south-west Scotland region.

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government has had any initial response from the United Kingdom Government in relation to the letter sent to the Minister of State for Food Security and Rural Affairs on 22 October regarding the fishing and coastal growth fund. (S6F-04404)

Some of the challenge in deer management comes from the differences between Highland and lowland deer management. My understanding is that the code of practice could be developed only if it allowed flexibility for different practices to be enabled in Highland and lowland deer management processes.