Chamber and committees

I will follow on from Beatrice Wishart’s questions. I am interested in the social contract that Professor Griggs recognised is needed to represent communities. Your report states that there is

“a lack of shared arenas for voicing concerns and dialogue which continues to fuel a perception of secrecy and misunderstandings.”

How can we help communities to have their voice and their needs recognised during the consenting process? As you have rightly identified, there are binary views out there, but there are communities that need to be heard during the consenting process. Beatrice Wishart asked about communication, the understanding of the science and the reality of the situation, but how do we address that issue?

Is the modelling iterative? If evidence is presented from the other organisations concerned, such as the fish health inspectorate, that you need to look at again, focusing your attentions on another zone, will that happen?

There is a hierarchy of the application of sanctions, which could perhaps lead to a report to the COPFS.

At that point, does the COPFS take the decision to shut down something, or do you have the powers to do that if something was really serious?

Since the new regulatory framework has come into force, has SEPA taken any enforcement action? What enforcement action is open to you? Would you consider introducing biomass reductions or rescinding licences for serious or persistent breaches of licence conditions?

What about escapes from salmon farms and the introgression that we have seen in wild salmon populations?

The importance of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill cannot be overstated, and my thanks, too, go to everyone who has got us to this stage. The bill will provide the much-needed framework—the scaffolding, in fact—for the measures that the Scottish ministers will use to develop the critical support that farming and rural communities need in order to adapt to new opportunities and challenges and to prosper in an ever-changing world.

The bill will be the platform for measures that are focused on the Scottish Government’s key outcomes of high-quality food production, climate mitigation and adaptation, nature restoration and wider rural development. We need to ensure our food security; protect our environment and enhance biodiversity; and support and empower our rural communities to thrive.

The vision for agriculture outlines the goal of transforming how the Government will

“support farming and food production in Scotland to become a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture.”

It puts farmers, crofters and land managers at its core, and values their efforts to help feed the nation and steward our countryside. The Scottish Government understands that the sector needs flexibility, now and into the future, to best respond to the pressures and challenges that we will continue to face. NFU Scotland has told us that being nimble and flexible is key.

As we move forward, the bill will allow for the provision of adaptive support to farmers, crofters and land managers in the near-term, medium-term and long-term future. As the Scottish Government continues to co-develop the measures for the four-tier support framework, it remains committed to supporting active farming and food production with direct payments now, and it will take a phased approach to integrating new conditionality. There must be no cliff edges in either support or conditionality.

It is important to reflect on the fact that the bill was informed by the insights of five farmer-led groups that reported to us. Those invaluable groups made contributions on the suckler beef, dairy, pig, arable and hill, upland and crofting sectors and demonstrated a shared commitment to, and appetite for, change across the industry.

During consideration of the bill, many expressed the view that there needed to be much more detail in the text of the bill. Although I understand why some felt that way, it is not practical to lay out detailed schemes in primary legislation, as that would remove the opportunity to create flexibility to respond to unforeseen future issues. That is why the framework bill is the right way forward. Secondary legislation will lay out detailed schemes that will sit within the framework of primary legislation but will be best able to respond to change. It is also important that we ensure that there is space for the relevant committee to scrutinise future iterations in a way that is effective for all. I agree that it is imperative that we see the rural support plan as soon as possible.

One of the first sessions that I attended as a new member of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee was when we hosted 37 land managers and community representatives from across Scotland to help to inform our consideration of the bill. I found the session to be highly informative, and I came away contemplating how we create space for, and provide support to, our smaller producers, and how we ensure that the voices of rural communities are amplified and those communities are supported to thrive. I would be keen to hear from the cabinet secretary on both those issues when she sums up.

Finally, it is important that we reflect on the reason that the bill was needed in the first place, which is Brexit—a change that this country did not vote for, and which has been quite disastrous for our rural communities. While Scotland was in the European Union, we enjoyed the benefit of a seven-year multi-annual framework that reflected the uniqueness of our agricultural landscape, with Scotland receiving nearly £1 billion in funding annually to support farming, food production, woodland creation, environmental protection and wider rural priorities. Since Brexit, Scotland’s funding has been allocated annually, with no certainty beyond next year, and scant dialogue from UK ministers, despite the best efforts of our cabinet secretary. Perhaps an incoming Government can have better dialogue with us.

In addition, we must recognise the threats that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 places on our agriculture sector, and the difficulties that it creates with regard to our ability to tailor agricultural payments to the specific needs of Scottish farmers, crofters and land managers in the future. I do not think that we can underestimate that.

This framework bill is needed, and I urge the Parliament to support it today.

The thrust of my question is about the sanctions regime that you are responsible for in relation to the number of escapees and how escapes are reported. Is the regime strong enough?

I have a great interest in the welfare of wild Scottish salmon. Although you have no locus in relation to the health of wild salmon, as you said to my colleague Ariane Burgess, you have responsibility for ensuring compliance with the reporting requirements for fish farm escapes. I accept that there is a complex picture in relation to why wild salmon populations are decreasing. Is the number of fish farm escapes being recorded accurately? Is there a need to strengthen the current fines and sanctions, or are they appropriate? I suppose that that was too many questions to ask at once.

Thank you, convener—I will answer to anything, really. Good morning, Charles.

Last week, the committee heard from Professor Sam Martin that mortality normally starts to drop off in the winter time, when we have colder waters and colder weather. However, more recently we have seen warmer winters, which has caused more significant issues in relation to gill health, causing a higher level of mortality. The REC Committee had already recognised the serious challenges presented by poor gill health and disease, particularly in the context of rising sea temperatures. On the basis of on your surveillance work, are you able to say whether the prevalence of diseases has increased or decreased in recent years with the warmer weather?