Chamber and committees

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.

I will be moving and speaking to amendments 85, 86 and 87, in the name of Jim Fairlie, who is now the minister.

As the committee’s stage 1 report indicated, the monitoring and reporting requirements must be balanced against any resources that the Scottish Government and its agencies, and wider interest groups, require to carry out that work. In the previous minister’s response to the stage 1 report, that minister stated that the Scottish Government was committed to an open and transparent approach to legislation. Where additional reporting serves a useful purpose, the Scottish Government has said that it is happy to support it, which I welcome.

Amendments 85, 86 and 87 will require monitoring of section 16AA licences and their effect. Part of the reason for the bill is to address raptor persecution on land managed for grouse shooting, and the Scottish Government wants to do so through the section 16AA licensing provisions. The Werritty review identified three raptor species populations as being significantly impacted by criminal activities on some grouse moors: the golden eagle—indeed, there have been criminal investigations into the persecution of those birds in my South Scotland region—the hen harrier and the peregrine falcon.

To assess the bill’s effectiveness in reducing raptor persecution on those raptor species, regular monitoring and surveillance of their populations will be essential, and I acknowledge the Scottish Government’s commitment to doing so. When Gillian Martin was the minister, she stated that some monitoring of raptor populations was already undertaken by the Scottish Raptor Study Group, and my office has been in contact with the group ahead of this consideration.

Based on the evidence that the committee has taken, I strongly believe that the requirement to undertake raptor population assessments is important, and I would welcome the minister’s comments on these important amendments on monitoring.

I move amendment 85.

Good morning, everybody. I have no interests to declare.

Would the member take an intervention?

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.

Michael Collier talked about time and task; I am thinking about rural areas where it might be better for councils to do one one-hour visit rather than driving to four 15-minute visits. I know that Dumfries and Galloway Council did a pilot on that. How would you see that being rolled out more widely to give more choice to people who are receiving SDS?

In May 2023, the Government published its plan, “Self-Directed Support Improvement Plan 2023-27”. One of the chapters is entitled “What is different about this Plan” and another is entitled “How will we know the Plan is working?” I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the Government committing to doing an annual report to look at what has been taken forward, because there are a lot of extremely complex areas when it comes to SDS. An idea that I had was that SDS could be embedded in the education of social care workers.

What are your thoughts on the improvement plan? How can we measure how successful we have been in addressing the complexities of care, whether people are at home, in the community or in a community hospital?

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.