Chamber and committees

I am a member of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. The National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, which that committee is considering, is a framework bill, as well. We had a stushie in the process because of what is not in that bill but will be developed in co-design.

The technology is developing really quickly. Scotland’s Rural College, which does research and development and works on the science, welcomes the framework bill because it will allow adaptations for whatever we do in the future, such as emissions reduction in ruminants and things like that.

I am interested in engagement in the co-design process, given that there are a lot of parallels between the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill and the bill that we are discussing, as they are both framework bills. I am interested to hear how the co-design process is being done with land users, farmers and crofters in order to give people confidence and give the process stability.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am pleased to move amendment 83, which was lodged by Jim Fairlie, who was a member of the committee a couple of weeks ago. The bill provides that Scottish ministers must prepare a code of practice relating to managing land to which a section 16AA grouse licence relates. The code of practice was a recommendation of the Werritty review and it is intended that it will cover issues that were identified by that review, such as the use of medicated grit. The proposed new section 16AC(2) of the 1981 act sets out examples of the type of guidance that may be included in the code of practice. At stage 1, a number of parties were concerned that there were no specific references that allowed medicated grit to be provided, raising concern that the silence might suggest that its use was no longer legitimate.

Amendment 83 adds medicated grit to a non-exhaustive list of topics for which guidance may be provided, and I hope that it will provide clarity and certainty on the matter. It has been specifically included in an amendment to make it transparent that the code would cover the use of medicated grit. If a licence specifies that the medicated grit sections of the code must be complied with, failure to do so would be an offence under the bill, which would mean that the licence could be revoked or suspended on those grounds. That is an important safeguard to ensure that the use of medicated grit is appropriate and that it meets good practice standards as set out in the code.

I move amendment 83 and encourage committee members to vote for it.

I am absolutely aware, from my research since coming back to the committee, that we used to use fenbendazole but we now use flubendazole. There are issues and concerns around when and how flubendazole is used, and there are issues around potential resistance. I have learned that the grit is used in a way that supports the welfare of the red grouse to deal with the parasitic strongyle threadworm. I am interested in that, as my background is as a nurse, working in healthcare. I am therefore used to dealing with issues around managing medication. I do not think it is right that Edward Mountain suggests that, because I do not work in a rural area, I might not have knowledge about medicated grit, for instance. We all know how to research.

I am interested in considering how we manage best practice, support the best welfare and monitor how medicated grit is used. I think that it is worth pursuing amendment 83. I spoke to the minister to gather some background information, and I was reassured that the amendment that was lodged by Jim Fairlie is a reasonable one.

Given that, based on what Mr Fairlie has said, the Government would like time to ensure that the amendments are workable and doable within the current resources, I am happy not to press or move them. I am keen for the minister to work with NatureScot and others, to have the appropriate discussions and then potentially to bring back redrafted versions at stage 3.

I am a bit breathless listening to all this. Section 26 of the bill has paragraphs on the code of practice and on what is “sustainable and regenerative agriculture”, as well as on what the Scottish ministers must do to

“review and, if they consider it appropriate, revise and publish the code”.

Scottish ministers must come to Parliament before publishing the code. Also, the

“Scottish Ministers must, in preparing or reviewing the code, consult such persons as they consider likely to be interested in or affected by it.”

After hearing what Rhoda Grant said about the policy memorandum, it seems to me from reading that section that the bill does not suggest that anything is going to be foisted on farmers; rather, this is about engaging with them. Cabinet secretary, you have talked about co-design and about all the people who have been invited to participate and to give input on their role in relation to sustainability and regenerative farming, whether they are wheat producers, big arable barley growers or whatever. I am interested in hearing how we make sure that people understand that nothing will be foisted on them, because this is partnership working, which is what co-design is all about.

With my support to facilitate its happening, members of the Galloway community hospital action group—my constituents Dr Angela Armstrong, Dr Gordon Baird and former charge nurse Janice Mayall—recently gave evidence to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee as part of our health in remote and rural areas inquiry. Their evidence included the current situation regarding maternity services in Wigtownshire. NHS D and G leadership recently stated that recruitment of midwives is a key challenge to improving the situation.

Will the minister commit to looking closely at the outcome of the health committee’s report when we publish it and, in particular, at how we can improve recruitment?

Do you think that the lack of uptake of option 1 might be because information on it is not provided? Does wider information need to be put out about the four options and how people can make their personal choice in order to decide for themselves and have more empowerment and control? I will look at the details of the age information. It looks like people between zero and 17 have a higher uptake of option 1 and people between 65 and 75 choose option 3. It might be about how the options are sold to people.

Good morning. From quickly looking at the data on people choosing option 1 to option 4, it looks like option 1, which involves a person being an employer and having someone coming and supporting them with care, is chosen least. Option 3 is basically a mixture of choices from option 1 through to option 4. In our papers, there are issues relating to stress that might be caused by being an employer. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that. I will go to Julia Smith first. Option 1 seems to be chosen least, and it looks like option 3 involves the local authority choosing. Is there stress associated with having a personal assistant?

This is to get clarity regarding consultation on the instrument. The policy note says that a six-week public consultation was launched on 17 July and closed on 28 August. Food Standards Scotland did not receive any responses to the consultation, but the Food Standards Agency received 13. I would be interested to know why Food Standards Scotland did not receive any responses and why the Food Standards Agency received 13. I know that the agencies work closely together to obtain information, but I would be interested to know how they publicise consultations. Do agencies write to the people whom they expect would respond? I would be interested to get a wee bit of clarity on why zero responses were received to Food Standards Scotland’s call for information.