³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Retired greyhounds make great pets when they are rehomed. It looks as though we have lots of dogs that need to be rehomed in Scotland, even though racing is not happening in Scotland. I am looking at some of the data on charities that are sometimes burdened because of dogs having injuries that need to be dealt with before they can be rehomed. Is the Government working with some of those charities to look at the number of animals that need surgery or other treatment before they are rehomed? Is such data being gathered? I am looking at Andrew Voas as well.

Good morning. I have been listening carefully, and I appreciate colleagues’ thoughtful and respectful contributions so far. My amendments 12 and 13 are directly linked. Amendment 12 allows the introduction of amendment 13. My amendments seek to allow registered medical practitioners to consult other health and social care professionals, such as nurses, carers and social workers, when assessing whether a person has made a declaration voluntarily and without coercion.

I remind colleagues that I am still a registered nurse. The proposal was informed by engagement over summer recess with constituents and medical professionals working in end-of-life and palliative care. I met the Royal College of Nursing over the summer, and again recently, and I met the Scottish Association of Social Work. The medical professionals raised concerns that non-medical professionals often have more frequent and meaningful contact with individuals nearing the end of life and may be better placed to detect subtle signs of coercion or distress. I acknowledge what Bob Doris said about people feeling that they are a burden.

Originally, my amendments aimed to strengthen safeguards and promote a multidisciplinary approach, ensuring that assessments are thorough and person centred. Acknowledgement was made of concerns around the wording, particularly regarding the liability, responsibility and training of professionals, such as registered nurses, to be accountable for assessing coercion, whether overt or subtle. I am aware of the potential cost implications in that approach.

My amendments are therefore presented as probing amendments, and I am willing to work with the member in charge ahead of stage 3 to redefine the language or change it if necessary.

I think so—I had finished.

It has been pointed out to me that, because of the requirement to train health professionals—whether they are carers, registered nurses or any other people who are entering someone’s home—they would need to be provided with education. I do not know the direct costs, but I understand that that would potentially cause a cost burden under the member’s bill. I am happy for amendments 12 and 13 to be probing amendments for discussion and to hear what the member has to say about the issue.

It is on the back of Beatrice Wishart’s question and is on ownership of owner-occupied crofts. Currently, there is no explicit restriction on who may own an owner-occupied croft, so it includes natural persons, which are people, and non-natural persons, which might be companies, trusts or partnerships. Section 10 introduces a new legal restriction that is aimed at limiting ownership of owner-occupied crofts to individuals only. The intention is to ensure that owner-occupied crofts continue to be held by individuals, who can then fulfil the aims of cultivation, agriculture, food production and so on. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that section.

I am thinking about the openness and transparency around who owns the croft and who owns the land in Scotland. Transparency International has done some work on the step-by-step process of finding out who own a piece of land. I am thinking that the intention is that it is a person, not an entity in the Cayman Islands. That is a statement, not a question.

Good morning. Sandesh Gulhane touched on the issues involving criminal justice, health and assessment, and you spoke in your opening statement about the collaboration that is required between health, education and social care. We have had members’ business debates about eating disorders, which are also linked with neurodevelopmental conditions. I recently met the Dumfries and Galloway Ehlers-Danlos group, which identified the issue of co-existing and co-occurring conditions such as dyslexia and ADHD. I am thinking about eating disorders such as avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder. It is all very complex, which is why, I assume, there needs to be collaboration, co-working and all that engagement. I just want to highlight the complexity of everything.

I have a quick question that will pick up on your comments on stigma and helping to support people in the work environment. When I was an NHS educator, we used Turas, which is a digital training platform from NHS Education for Scotland. NES created and delivered a foundations of neurodiversity-affirming practice webinar in 2023. That is recommended for all health and social care staff, but the organisation does not seem to be tracking whether that has been delivered or what numbers have received the training. It is fair enough to recommend that as a starting point for all staff, but does that mean that it is being delivered to all staff?

The training is a great way of creating a neuro-affirming work environment so that people who are clinical educators—as I was—can understand what works best for people who might be autistic or might have ADHD. Is there a way of finding out how that training is being delivered by health boards?

Good morning to youse all. Crofts might be abandoned or just left, and then people might say that that was for rewilding. The whole purpose of crofting is about communities—getting people into rural areas, tackling depopulation and having community benefit. Is consideration for the environment not about supporting communities as well?

I have a quick question about grazings committees first. When do grazings committees meet? Are they required to meet every six months or whatever over the three-year period?