Chamber and committees

Thanks for that clarification.

I am interested in ultra-processed foods and the emerging research that says that they are not good for you. In the national population health framework, health-harming products are listed as tobacco, vapes, alcohol and gambling, but ultra-processed foods are not listed. Is that because we are too early in the research to pin UPFs as a problem and as a health-harming product?

I am also interested in the tension between localised food availability, food processing and the role of major supermarket chains, and in what role the national plan plays in addressing some of the tension between the big, global producers and the whole supply chain. How will the national food plan help to address some of the tensions that we see?

I thank Mr Rowley for lodging the motion to allow us to debate the matter. As I represent a rural region that is affected possibly more than most areas in respect of access to NHS dentistry, I sympathise with his constituents.

I agree with Mr Rowley that the decisions by privately owned dental practices to withdraw care and increase charges are hugely concerning and need exposed. In the south of Scotland, we have seen many of the same challenges affecting patients’ access to dentists, which in some cases has been hugely restricted or withdrawn completely.

Over the past two years, nearly 25,000 people in Dumfries and Galloway have been deregistered from NHS dental practices. That includes 2,500 in Lochthorn, 4,000 in the DADDS practice and 1,000 people in Stranraer. Over the past couple of years, I have engaged in a lot of casework on the issue.

I am grateful for the Scottish Government’s roll-out of the Scottish dental access initiative, which is delivering opportunities for investment in rural dentistry and rural practices.

As I said, there are still issues that need to be addressed, and I will come on to discuss potential solutions.

I urge any practice in rural Dumfries and Galloway, in the Borders and in parts of South Ayrshire to get in touch with the Scottish dental access initiative to see what they can do to boost and expand their services and the number of patients they serve.

In the time that I have, I highlight that I believe that we can go further where needed—for example, by introducing mobile dental services to go directly to communities where dental coverage is reduced and bring care to the doorstep until a longer-term solution can be found. Deploying mobile units would allow the NHS and dental professionals to react quickly to closures or the withdrawal of services and to ensure that locals who are affected continue to receive NHS dental care. I am keen to hear from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health whether mobile dental services could be pursued in Galloway as an action to assist.

Across Scotland, we have seen a revolution in preventative care that is aimed at ensuring that patients do not need treatment in the first place. For the past decade and a half, the Scottish National Party Scottish Government has delivered the Childsmile programme to every child under 12, with a focus on those who are under five.

Over that period, the proportion of those in primary 1 with no tooth decay has improved. Children from the most economically deprived households saw the biggest benefit, and the health inequality gap between those children and those in the wealthiest households is closing. The commitment to engaging in the early years to prevent issues from arising later in life, when they increase the pressures on care services, also drives the Scottish Government’s policy on funding dental treatment for all those aged under 26 in our country, which was introduced four years ago and is putting money back in the pockets of hard-pressed households during Westminster’s cost of living crisis.

There is a lot more that can be done in dentistry, just as there is always much that can be done for our health and care sector. However, I know that our Scottish Government is committing to do all that it can to provide the best possible treatment for our citizens, regardless of where they live. The areas of Scotland that face the fewest problems are those that have less trouble maintaining their populations and have a younger demographic.

Attracting dentists to our communities is as hard as attracting people in any other profession, as there are clearly challenges in pulling newly qualified professionals away from the urban cities. Fixing the challenges of rural dentistry also means tackling the much bigger—and, to be frank, more complex—issues around the demography of regions such as Dumfries and Galloway, and our NHS can play a part in that. I will stop there.

Give me one wee second.

In Moffat in my region, for example, Moffat Dental Practice took on 2,000 new patients after securing grant funding from the dental access initiative. That funding helped to provide an additional NHS dentist in the practice and supported local training efforts.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that home detention curfews should be used as a tool to reintegrate offenders to their communities, manage the release of individuals from short custodial sentences, and reduce the prison population and reoffending?

I appreciate that it is late, so I will not take up a lot of time. The minister will be aware that I have done a lot of work over the years on the issue of puppies coming through the port of Cairnryan. Will the legislative consent motion help to address that issue? We have been trying to take action on it for many years.

I understand what Mark Ruskell is saying. When I was approached about the amendments and, in particular, about arbitration, the issues of cost, timeliness and dispute resolution often came up. The cabinet secretary is proposing that wider engagement should take place so that we can have an improved process for arbitration and dispute resolution. I am therefore happy not to press amendment 542, which will allow us to do some work to improve the process and engage more widely with stakeholders.

Amendment 542, by agreement, withdrawn.

Before section 28

Amendment 386 not moved.

Section 28 agreed to.

Section 29—Regulation-making powers

Amendments 504, 505, 387, 388 and 521 not moved.

Amendments 506, 309 and 513 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].

I lodged amendments 536 to 539 to enable a more open and transparent rent review process. There is widespread practice of rent being applied without the tenant knowing which other farm was used as the equivalent that the proposed rent is based on or, indeed, whether another comparable farm was used to assess the rent at all. That results in unnecessary delays and expense in agreeing rent, and it delays the outcome of rent reviews in relation to the increase in rent for the occupier of the holding. I take on board what the cabinet secretary has said regarding amendments 537 and 539, however, and I am happy to consider a different form of wording.

Amendments 536 and 538 relate to rent being assessed on the basis of a hypothetical tenant, not the actual tenant who occupies the holding, because a tenant in occupation of the holding could be persuaded to pay rent that was higher than normal. That is sometimes referred to as ransom rent. Tenants might agree to a higher rent in order to avoid the costs of disruption associated with moving to another holding. It is fundamental to ensure that rent is determined on the basis of a hypothetical tenant, not the actual tenant, because that provides an equitable basis for rent review. That is a long-standing principle, so I am keen to move amendments 536 and 538.

On amendments 520 and 521, the issue of arbitration has come up a lot in the discussions that I have had regarding the need to have an easier process of negotiating and coming to agreement when there are disagreements between a landlord and a tenant. Provisions on short-form arbitration and for determining the arbitration process would be made by regulation by the Scottish ministers. I hear what the cabinet secretary said about having wider engagement with stakeholders on the best methods for arbitration. I am keen that we support a more cost-effective, more accessible and quicker dispute resolution mechanism, so I am happy to engage more widely with stakeholders, hear what they think and then come back to the issue.

Good morning. It is good to be here. My amendment 524 might seem like a simple replacement of wording—replacing “or” with “and”—but the drafting of section 20(2) might prevent a tenant from claiming compensation for game damage to crops, including deer damage. Scottish Land & Estates and the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association suggested replacing “or” with “and”, which maintains the current meaning of section 52 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 and maintains fairness for both the landlord and the tenant.

My amendment 518 may be considered a probing amendment. Where there is game damage, it can be assessed and determined by an arbitrator. For example, if the landlord and tenant do not agree regarding the damage, that would go directly to arbitration. The process of direct arbitration and assessment of damage would be more cost effective, accessible, timely and efficient as a means of dispute resolution, instead of proceeding to the Land Court.

My amendment 519 allows the legislation to be flexible, so that the provision of and process for arbitration can be determined based on an assessment of what works and what does not, and any regulations that are made regarding the arbitration would be subject to the affirmative procedure.

My amendments future proof the legislation and support effective, faster, cost-effective dispute resolution.