Chamber and committees

We now have a minister who has a combined portfolio that includes drugs and alcohol, and minimum unit pricing is not the only action that is being taken as a public health approach. You mentioned the Non-Communicable Disease Alliance. I took part in creating its report regarding NCDs.

I am interested in the fact that we are taking a step back to involve people right at the beginning. Involving people with a wide range of experience does seem to be valuable.

We have heard about the support that is required right across the social care spectrum. Here I should probably remind everyone that I am a registered nurse. Over the summer, I spent time visiting the social care delivery team at Stewartry Care in Castle Douglas. Its work is varied and the people there are skilled and competent in delivering care for people in their own homes.

I am keen to ensure that people understand what the co-design process is. They might just assume that co-design and co-production are the same thing, but they are not. Did that point about there being co-design and not co-production come out in the consultation process?

There is a lot of information from the six reports on the Government’s website, and they are available in an accessible format. The reports are pretty comprehensive. I will probably need to read them in more detail, but I appreciate that.

Just to go back a bit, I recommend that people look at the Government’s website. There is comprehensive information on the national care service, with all the reports and information on the engagements over the summer and the work that has been done to connect locally. It is great that Stranraer was one of the places involved, because folk fae Stranraer always feel forgotten.

How does the Government get the message out that people should look at what is on the Government’s website to find out about the power of work that has been done over the summer? What is the best way to share that information?

I welcome the stage 1 debate. I wish Oliver Mundell a swift recovery and I hope that he feels better soon. I also thank the DPLR Committee, the clerks and all others for their input so far.

Scots trust law is widely considered to be out of date, and the main legislation is now just over a century old—it dates back to 1921. Trust law is widely understood, including by the legal profession, to be complex, difficult to understand, cumbersome and opaque. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the bill will simplify trust legislation, making the process easier, simpler and more accessible—which members have already talked about—for all who are involved.

The bill will bring the current legislation into the 21st century. In a modern society, trusts are used as solutions in an incredibly wide variety of situations. They are used extensively by charities and pension funds, as others have mentioned, in commercial transactions to set funds aside to deal with future liabilities, and in individual estate planning.

Trusts are also used to protect and administer assets on behalf of vulnerable people such as children and adults with incapacity and disabilities. As I know through my casework, trusts are also important to look after community assets and funds, as well as for matters that might not automatically spring to mind. For instance, one of my constituents told me about the importance of the bill for her—she and her husband use a trust to secure financial assets for their child, who is in the custodial estate. That relates to Keith Brown’s point about vulnerable people.

Trusts are, indeed, hugely important, but the state of trust law in Scotland at present is inaccessible and off-putting. People who have had experience of those difficulties are reluctant to create new trusts, even if a trust represents the best option to provide the flexibility and protection that they seek. As reported by the Law Society of Scotland, that inertia around trusts in Scotland is putting Scotland at a disadvantage, in contrast to other European nations and other parts of the UK.

The Scottish Law Commission, the Law Society of Scotland and practitioners have commented on all those issues throughout the various consultations that led to the bill. Indeed, I echo the comments of Lady Paton of the inner house of the Court Session, who said:

“There will be considerable rejoicing and relief amongst the legal community who deal with clients and find the 100-year-old law a major handicap.”

Therefore, we are moving in the right direction with the bill.

As a healthcare professional and a member of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, I am particularly interested in the provisions of the bill in relation to incapacity. Under section 3 of the 1921 act, all trusts are held to include a provision that decisions must be made by quorum, which is defined as

“a majority of the trustees accepting and surviving”.

However, that does not include incapax trustees. That can lead to issues where trust decisions cannot be made if a majority cannot be achieved. The bill addresses that, and a definition of “incapable” is included in the bill at section 75. It closely reflects the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, which refers to whether a person is capable of making, communicating, understanding and

“retaining the memory of decisions”.

In addition, section 12 of the bill states that trustees’ decisions are to be made

“by a majority of those for the time being able to make”

them, and that

“a trustee is not to be regarded as able to make a decision who ... is incapable”.

That therefore means that capacity can be determined on a decision-specific basis, allowing incapax trustees to continue as trustees and to participate where appropriate without hindering the administration of the trust.

I appreciate the minister’s comments regarding incapacity and the commitment to look further at the issue of capacity or incapacity to prevent abuse.

The bill will improve Scots law in relation to trusts, and I urge members to support it at decision time.

Last week, I spoke at a conference at Our Dynamic Earth to discuss the importance of using anaerobic digestion to produce clean energy, which agriculture has huge potential to achieve. Given that the Scottish Government has committed to exploring increasing energy output from such innovations, will the minister comment on how that will be achieved and whether she will work with our agriculture sector to fulfil that huge potential for clean energy?

I am pleased to speak to amendments 1 and 2, which are grouped together and which concern the appointment of the patient safety commissioner.

From the outset, I want to make it clear that it is crucial, particularly given the reasons that have led to the creation of the commissioner post, that patients and their families have trust in the commissioner. That trust might be undermined if the office were held by someone with a strong—and I emphasise “strong”—financial interest in healthcare. That includes those who are currently or have very recently been employed in healthcare or who have a controlling interest in or influence over, for example, a pharmaceutical company.

That said, I think that paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the bill might, as currently worded, go too far. The current wording would disqualify those with

“a financial interest in a health care provider”

from being appointed as commissioner, but that would also exclude someone who, for example, had a smaller number of shares in a pharmaceutical company. It seems like a very blanket approach, and such fixed, strict wording could exclude an otherwise very suitable, competent and qualified candidate. I am grateful to the minister for working with me on the amendments that I have lodged, which would remove the current disqualification criteria and replace them with a more nuanced approach.

Amendment 1 would require Parliament to inquire whether a person who was to be nominated for appointment as commissioner had a relevant financial interest. It would then be for Parliament to exercise its judgment about candidates, which would enhance the Parliament’s role and its accountability over the appointment of a commissioner. It would mean that good candidates would not be excluded from the outset on account of a minimal and/or indirect financial interest, including those who were part of a pension scheme that happened to have shares in a pharmaceutical company, something that appears to be relatively common in practice. It is my view that the amendment would increase the pool and diversity of candidates applying for the position of patient safety commissioner, which, in turn, would deliver the best possible outcome for patients.

Amendment 2 would simply leave out subparagraph 5(d) of schedule 1, for the reasons explained in relation to amendment 1, and I urge members to support amendments 1 and 2.

I move amendment 1.

I thank Brian Whittle for that. I realise that our food prices have gone up because of decisions that were made by Tory Governments. When Sajid Javid was Home Secretary, in 2019, he agreed with the recommendations of the Migration Advisory Committee that we should have a rural pilot scheme in Scotland. I therefore respond to the member by asking what is the reason for that dither and delay from the UK Government?

I will focus on what I hear from south-west Scotland dairy farmers, who are saying that dairy farming is not seasonal—it requires work all year round—and south-west Scotland has 48 per cent of Scotland’s dairy herd.

I have previously focused on encouraging our own young people to consider rural and agricultural careers. In fact, last week, I was at the Royal Highland Education Trust event in Parliament, which was about supporting young people into agriculture. However, we require migrant workers. They are essential for farm operations, for the supply of dairy produce and for animal welfare. Many agricultural tasks do not have viable or affordable mechanical alternatives, and the availability and capability of local people is limited.

I reiterate that the UK Government needs to support Scotland by allowing the implementation of a rural visa pilot scheme so that we can have the workforce in Scotland, encourage immigration to our area and support our rural economies.

To be clear, I welcome the Parliament’s being able to exercise judgment about the candidates that are chosen. I am not seeking to amend the bill in relation to the disqualification of members of Parliament or the Scottish Parliament, as set out in the bill.

I urge members to support my amendments, and I press amendment 1.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 2 moved—[Emma Harper]—and agreed to.

I congratulate my colleague Kate Forbes on securing this important debate. She outlined the issues in support of a rural visa pilot for Scotland scheme very well.

As a member of the Scottish Parliament whose region covers a vast rural area in the south-west of Scotland, I am acutely aware of the real challenges that our agriculture sector faces when it comes to recruitment. Although those challenges are faced across many parts of Scotland, such as the Highlands and Islands, as described by Kate Forbes, they are also faced in the south-west, and I will focus my contribution there.

The Scottish Government is clear that inward migration enriches our society, and migrants make a net contribution to our economy, public services and public finances. Scotland’s demography, our ageing population and the depopulation of some remote and rural areas mean that inward migration is crucial to Scotland’s future prosperity. In the past decade, an estimated 45 per cent of overseas migrants to Scotland have come from the EU, but analysis has shown that there is a reduction of around 30 to 50 per cent in net overseas migration into Scotland as a result of the ending of the free movement of people. That is significant in the context of the latest NRS projections, which were published in January 2022 and which show that in-migration is the only factor maintaining Scotland’s current population growth.

The decline in labour from the EU is particularly acute in Scotland’s agricultural sector, and it is important to say why that is concerning. It concerns me because our farmers are our producers. They put the food on our tables, they are the custodians of our land and they are the future of our food security. Indeed, agriculture is the linchpin of rural Scotland, as it directly employs 65,000 people in production, while also indirectly supporting Scotland’s food and drink industry, which employs 360,000.