Chamber and committees

The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission report raised specific risks for welfare at the independent tracks through the lack of immediate veterinary care and recommended that a vet should be required at tracks to collect injury and fatality data. Given that recommendation, is the Scottish Government currently minded to introduce a requirement for a vet to be present at independent tracks?

Good morning, minister. Do you think there is a need for more traceability of greyhounds in early life in Scotland and across the UK? If so, how do you think that could be achieved?

Thank you.

Amendment 167, in my name, seeks to change the wording regarding who is to be consulted, from those whom “Scottish Ministers ... consider appropriate” to those who are

“likely to be affected by provisions in this section”.

That wording is more in line with previous legislation. I believe that the more specific wording will ensure that people who are affected by the provisions will have the opportunity to voice their views through consultation.

Amendment 144 seeks to expand the schedule 1 list of products that could be supported by Scottish ministers by adding venison to the list. Stakeholders have expressed concern about the extent to which the bill supports or does not support different areas. The amendment provides much-needed clarity that venison is a product that can be supported by Scottish ministers. It provides important future flexibility, as venison presents an opportunity for the agricultural sector and for food security, particularly in relation to finding new markets for culled venison. I ask the committee to support amendment 144.

Given what the cabinet secretary said about recognising the views from around the table and recognising that there will be more work to be done, I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 159 not moved.

Amendment 160 not moved.

Amendment 161 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Amendment 171 seeks to change the wording regarding who is to be consulted, from those who the Scottish ministers “consider appropriate” to those who are

“likely to be affected by provisions in this section”.

That wording is more in line with that contained in existing legislation.

I acknowledge that my amendment is similar to Rhoda Grant’s amendment 76. However, I believe that the more specific wording in my amendment will ensure that people affected by the provisions will have the opportunity to voice their views through consultation. I intend to move amendment 171, and I will be interested to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say.

Section 9, as drafted, gives the Scottish ministers the power either to cap or taper payments. Rightly, it does not compel the Scottish ministers to use those powers, nor does it stipulate how they are to be used, leaving that for secondary legislation. My amendment 159 seeks to state in the bill that the Scottish ministers also have the power to use a front-loading approach, which is similar to, but distinct from, tapering. Stating that within the bill will indicate that the Scottish ministers have the power to use that tool to address the disadvantages faced by crofters and smaller farmers.

My amendment 165 defines “payments under tier 1” in section 9.

Amendment 163, in my name, would define the persons consulted on the powers in section 9 as those who are

“likely to be affected by provisions in this section”.

I believe that that more specific wording will ensure that those who are affected by the provisions have the opportunity to voice their views through consultation.

Amendment 164, in my name, would require regulations made under section 9 to be subject to the affirmative procedure. In my view, that would be the appropriate level of scrutiny for the powers that the Scottish ministers have in that section.

I ask members to support my amendments 159, 163, 164 and 165.

Amendment 194, in my name, seeks to require Scottish ministers to consult farmers, crofters and land managers before making regulations under section 27, and to

“have regard to any responses to the consultation.”

CPD must be co-designed with crofters and farmers, and it must be appropriate for the size and location of crofts and farms to ensure that it is effective in achieving its aims. Amendment 194 would ensure that there is a statutory requirement for farmers, crofters and land managers to have their views considered by Scottish ministers before they make regulations about CPD.

Amendment 96 amends the second objective in the bill by broadening it from referring only to food production to referring to agricultural and food production. Adding the word “agricultural” delivers a more accurate definition of farming and crofting activity, as it captures all aspects of agricultural production that are not directly related to food per se but are still of importance, such as animal feed and renewable energy.

I support amendment 27, in the name of Rhoda Grant, as Scotland’s agriculture sector is diverse and that diversity should be supported and encouraged.

I also support amendment 22, in the name of Elena Whitham, because it adds an objective on the promotion and support of agricultural practices that protect and improve animal health and welfare.

Finally, I will comment on amendment 101, in the name of Rachael Hamilton. Although I am not averse to adding farmers explicitly to that objective, the change of wording from “enabling” to “allowing” is a weakening of the overall objective. I ask members to support amendment 96.