Seòmar agus comataidhean

It depends on the nature of the business. Ultimately, it is about having a deterrent. You have moved an amendment that suggests that the figure should be £500—well, £500 is very little next to the cost of producing a land management plan. We have to consider the context. We took evidence in the committee that suggested that some land management plans may cost several thousand pounds to produce—perhaps upwards of £10,000 or £15,000—although that depends on the guidance, and we do not have the guidance yet, so we are not sure what an LMP will look like for a large estate or a smaller estate.

There would be a way to avoid having an LMP if we accepted your amendment to pitch the fine at £500. I think that £40,000 is within the limit of something that the commissioner could do, which is why it is pitched at that limit. A fine of that nature would provide a deterrent. I hope that no one would ever get a fine, because, instead, they would do the easy, obvious thing, which is to comply with the legislation by having the conversation with the community and laying out their plans for the future. It should be a positive thing.

I will leave it there.

That would be an interesting example of whistleblowing within the structure of HIE. Those bodies have a role to play in working with other stakeholders and being able to report a potential breach if they see one. Ultimately, it is up to the land and communities commissioner to make that judgment. All that my amendments would do is say that those bodies can make a complaint where they perceive a breach. It is then up to the commissioner to gather the evidence and decide.

Going back to amendments 412 and 413, I think that cross-compliance on subsidy and statutory consents is essential—the Scottish Land Commission has identified that in its work. A fixed penalty of £40,000, as proposed by Bob Doris, is a useful starting point, but there would need to be meaningful points of escalation to ensure compliance. Landowners frequently access public money for agriculture, forestry or other forms of land management. Granting the land and communities commissioner a means of impacting landowners’ access to that funding will be far more impactful than a fixed financial penalty in more egregious cases. I thank Community Land Scotland for its support in developing the ideas for those amendments.

I support Bob Doris’s amendment 97, but my amendment 97A, which amends it, looks to strengthen the language that is used in one key regard. My understanding is that amendment 97 would allow the land and communities commissioner to follow up in cases of an on-going breach, and proposed section 44IA(3)(d) of the 2016 act would give the commissioner an option to impose a further fine if the breach is not remedied in a specified time. Amendment 97A proposes that the commissioner must issue subsequent fines if breaches are on-going. If we are at the point where fines are being issued and we are at the end of a process, I think that there should be a duty on the commissioner to issue those fines.

Turning to other amendments in the group, I support the cabinet secretary’s amendments that strengthen the commissioner’s role to initiate investigations into potential breaches. Unfortunately, I do not support Tim Eagle’s amendments that would reduce the maximum fine that the commissioner can impose, as that is moving in the other direction from the amendments that Ariane Burgess and I have proposed. We need strong enforcement in the legislation, so the Scottish Greens will be supporting Bob Doris’s amendments, which deliver that. Our amendments will strengthen what he has proposed and go a little further.

On Rhoda Grant’s amendments, I am supportive of amendment 347, which would add a provision for the land and communities commissioner to recommend that ministers issue a compulsory sales order in the event of an on-going breach that continues across a five-year period.

All the amendments in the group look to put in place a proper framework of penalties, as there is concern about compliance going forward.

I move amendment 53.

I find myself agreeing with much of what Tim Eagle said in relation to positive things happening in rural Scotland. The committee had a number of visits. For example, we went to Atholl Estates, which is well bedded in with the community, already has active plans on nature restoration, and is doing work on housing, the management of villages and so on. Where that works, it does work. I do not see it as a massive imposition to take that information and compile it in a way in which communities can engage with it.

Ultimately, this is about a conversation. Nothing in land management plans will compel landowners to make a certain decision. All they are being asked to do is to engage with communities. That could be a very positive conversation. It could be about the community thinking about how it can support an estate or a larger farm in its business enterprises and about where there might be business opportunities. Members of the community could say, “Have you thought about small-scale horticulture? Have you thought about a business doing mountain bike guiding or tuition?” There could be opportunities—it is a way of creating a conversation.

Okay. I will hurry up with my intervention and perhaps forego my opportunity to come in again later. I merely say that Mr Eagle’s points about the positivity are well made. However, convener, do you agree that the issue comes down to guidance? For an estate that already has well-developed forestry plans and land management plans, it will perhaps be more about translating those into a community conversation that is meaningful and supportive for the estate and the community. That is at the heart of the issue.

We do not know what that looks like yet, because we do not have the guidance yet. The guidance needs to show a way forward that is proportionate and genuinely useful for everybody. I do not recognise the figure of £15,000—the process could cost that if it was incredibly onerous, but it does not have to. It could involve the essence of what is in the bill, which is a positive conversation, positive community planning, iterative thinking between communities and landowners and partnership. That is what I take out of it. Do you agree, convener?

I could pretend to be Ariane Burgess talking about Mark Ruskell’s amendments, if you want.

I have a quick reflection. Do you agree that, where a larger estate has to produce a land management plan, surrounding smaller landholdings—farmers, typically—would benefit? They would not have to produce a land management plan, but the transparency of a nearby estate would be there, so they could see more clearly the future for the area and how they might fit into that.

Do you not think that the requirement for transparency and to have a discussion with bigger landholders would benefit smaller landholders such as yourself or the convener? Clearly, your land would not be captured by the 1,000 hectare threshold currently set by the bill.

I recognise that I am stepping in on the bill at quite a late stage. I am here because Gillian Mackay is on maternity leave at the moment, but I am very much progressing the amendments that she pursued at stage 2. I am sure that Gillian Mackay would concur with Jackie Baillie’s comments that the dialogue with the minister about the amendments has been very constructive.

Section 36 of the bill outlines information-sharing requirements for professionals who work in public health and social care services. In order to create a care record system that is person-centred, that section of the legislation could be amended to outline measures that ensure that citizens have control of and access to their data as part of a real digital choice approach.

I do not want to disappoint Brian Whittle, but I will not move amendment 53 today. Following discussions with the minister between stages 2 and 3, I have carefully considered the concerns raised, in particular those concerning the potential implications for data protection law, which is reserved. There is a risk that the amendment could prevent health and care providers from sharing personal data in situations in which it is currently legal and appropriate to do so, especially if they are acting in the best interests of a person, including children or vulnerable adults. I recognise the concern that requiring consent in such cases might be impractical and even counterproductive.

However, I acknowledge Jackie Baillie’s amendment 2, which shares a similar aim of enhancing data safeguards. It makes progress in that sensitive area, and the Scottish Greens will support that amendment and Mr Whittle’s amendment 2A.

I thank the minister and officials for their constructive engagement on this important issue, which came up at stage 2. There is consensus on the group, and we are happy to support Mr Whittle’s amendments and the Government’s amendments.

Amendments 72 and 73 are designed to provide a clearer definition of independent advocacy services in order to avoid ambiguity in how the legislation is applied. The definition is important in ensuring that advocacy is genuinely independent, which is critical to people being properly supported to have their voices heard. I hope that the amendments will improve awareness and understanding of that support to help people to realise their human rights.

Amendment 78 would require the Scottish ministers to review and report on the provision of independent advocacy that is funded by them—first within two years of the provision coming into force and then every four years after that. The Scottish ministers will be required to publish and lay before Parliament a report outlining an assessment of where the provision of independent advocacy has increased during the review period. If that has not happened, the report should set out what steps the Government intends to take to ensure that the availability of independent advocacy services increases before the next review period ends.

The amendment would provide greater transparency of what is being done to ensure that independent advocacy is available to those who really need it in order to be empowered. It would ensure that Scottish ministers deliver on the approach that is supported by the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance—that of incrementally increasing funding year on year for independent advocacy. I take on board the minister’s comments that the sector does not want to be overwhelmed, but I think that the incremental approach will work well, and the amendments in this group would help to provide the right direction for that.

The Greens are also sympathetic to this very limited extension of FOI law. Will the minister say a bit more about the consultation? Will it be a consultation specifically on extending FOI law to the social care sector? When will it be concluded? When should we expect any particular changes to FOI law to be brought forward on the back of the consultation, should the Scottish Government agree to take this further?

First and foremost, I pay tribute to the carers and care workers who have consistently looked to the Parliament to legislate for a fairer and much more compassionate social care system. Many of them have joined us here throughout the afternoon. I know that Anne’s family are here, too.

I also wish to thank the many third sector organisations—those that gave evidence throughout the different stages of the bill and everyone who has engaged with, shaped and challenged the bill. Their contribution has been invaluable.

I acknowledge my colleague Gillian Mackay, who worked tirelessly throughout the process. Her engagement and her amendments at stage 2, which were developed in close partnership with carers and supporting organisations, have been instrumental. I am proud to have lodged amendments that build on her work, particularly around strengthening independent advocacy. I also thank the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport for her constructive engagement with Gillian and, latterly, with me.

There is no hiding the fact that the bill has been enormously challenging, however. The intention and ambition behind the original bill deserve recognition. The National Care Service (Scotland) Bill aimed to build on years of efforts to better integrate health and social care. Going back to my time as a councillor, I remember how hard it was, in the early days, to bring that provision together on the ground.

Reform of this scale requires openness and collaboration, particularly when we are trying to fix issues that many people across the sector have been raising for years: unclear leadership, poor information sharing, fragmented funding streams, a postcode lottery for care and an overcomplicated landscape. Those cracks, which were already present, were deepened by the pandemic. We know how wide the gap can be between good policy ideas and real improvements on the ground that people feel.

Health and care reform has always been tough, and this bill is no exception. Integration, although necessary, remains deeply complex. My hope is that the Government reflects carefully on the missteps in this process. It is not time to retreat from that ambition but to learn how to do better next time. It is obviously important to involve people sooner, build consensus earlier and maintain focus on the people who the reforms are meant to serve.

As we get into the stage 3 debate, it is important to be honest. We wish that the bill had delivered more—more for those who rely on social care, for paid and unpaid carers and for the workforce. The need for improvement has not gone away; it remains urgent, and care reform must not be shelved.

It is clear that this is a long-term goal that must now be achieved incrementally. The bill has moved a long way from where it started. It is not perfect and key issues remain up for debate. However, we have arrived at a place today that reflects a more consensual approach from the sector, carers and parliamentarians across the chamber.

For many, the bill will feel like cautious progress, but it is progress nonetheless. It delivers some important changes—Anne’s law, centrally. That is huge progress. Strengthened independent advocacy, new rights for unpaid carers and steps towards fairer procurement are welcome and necessary.

I call on the Scottish Government to continue the work to implement the recommendations of the Feeley review, but it must do so while learning from its mistakes, engaging earlier and building wider consensus. Greater compromise will be essential, especially with local government and third sector partners in the unions. The complexity of care reform should never be a reason to give up, but it should be a real reason to lead.