Chamber and committees

I will focus my questions on the use of so-called cleaner fish and interactions with wild salmon. The industry has explained to the committee that it uses cleaner fish—wild-caught wrasse and farmed lumpfish—to help deal with and keep at bay sea lice infestations on the farms. However, we have heard from witnesses that the mortality rates for those cleaner fish are unacceptably high, with almost a third dying within three weeks of being deployed into the marine pens. Also, at the end of the process, when the salmon are harvested, the majority of the cleaner fish are killed. We heard from the industry that it is making strides to address some of the welfare issues, including using wellboats and so on to try to minimise stress and death.

The REC Committee made several recommendations. Recommendation 26 was about the

“urgent need for an assessment of future demand as well as all associated environmental implications of the farming, fishing and use of cleaner fish”,

and recommendation 28 was about the

“need for regulation of cleaner fish fishing to preserve wild stocks and avoid negative knock on impact in local ecosystem.”

My question focuses on the environmental impact of so-called cleaner fish and the welfare impact on them. How does the cabinet secretary respond to concerns regarding the high mortality rate of cleaner fish? Will the cabinet secretary update the committee on the code of good practice commitment in the vision for sustainable aquaculture and how it could address those concerns? Finally, would a code of practice be better than regulation, and is regulation needed in the area?

Thank you very much.

I have a few questions about interactions with wild salmon—

That is no problem, convener.

I want to touch on the issue of interactions with wild salmon. Although the Scottish wild salmon strategy, which the Government published in 2022, goes broader than the aquaculture impacts, it refers to the pressures that farmed salmon put on wild salmon. The salmon interactions working group has said that only one of its 42 recommendations has been acted on by the Government. What has delayed progress in delivering the group’s proposals? When can we expect them to be implemented?

The Atlantic Salmon Trust has told the committee that the issue is quite vital to the protection of wild salmon numbers in Scotland, because it is concerned about the genetic introgression that could happen. Is it possible for you to come back to the committee once you have a further understanding of the actual prevalence of genetic introgression?

Given that that report was from 2020, it would be helpful if the cabinet secretary could update the committee on what is going to come out of it and how the issues raised in it are going to be addressed.

Can you also update us on the code of good practice commitment in the vision for sustainable aquaculture? Where are we with that?

I am extremely grateful to see this important issue raised in the chamber once again, as it affects many of my constituents across rural Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.

These changes to inheritance tax and agricultural property relief, which have never been consulted on, will be devastating to the vast majority of farms in Scotland. It is not only Opposition politicians saying that; the National Farmers Union of Scotland, and many of my farming constituents, have confirmed the new reality that they are facing.

Before the election, Labour made lots of promises. It specifically promised that it would not change APR, but now it has announced that 100 per cent relief will apply only to the first £1 million, leaving farmers fearing that they will be unable to pass their farms on to the next generation. Despite what many in Labour seem to think, it does not take much to reach those thresholds, even if spouses join the relief. Farms can be asset rich and cash poor, meaning that we are at real risk of family farms being taxed into oblivion.

Before the election, there was a clear and united voice across the country that farming needed multi-annual ring-fenced funding to be increased from previous levels, along with collective engagement to agree the principles of future intra-UK allocations. That would have ensured the same certainty that we had while part of the EU. Instead, Labour’s approach to farming is worse than before. The removal of ring fencing and the Barnettising of funding were among the biggest fears the very first day after the Brexit vote, but sadly, they have now come to pass under the Labour Party.

We are only a few short months into this Labour Government, and what have we discovered so far? We have discovered that the chancellor, and potentially the rest of the UK Government, has a complete lack of understanding of how agriculture works in Scotland. The chancellor has claimed that the new approach should protect small farms. After meticulous analysis, Johnston Carmichael, tax adviser to the NFUS, has confirmed that, given the value of land, livestock and machinery, and the average size of a commercial farm being around 200 acres, the changes are likely to see a significant number of farm businesses brought within the scope of inheritance tax.

Family farms are being left in an unknown space, not knowing how best to manage succession of the business in an organised fashion while at the same time protecting against exposure to a punitive inheritance tax, charged upon death, that could lead to the breakup of their family farm, and to factory farming and further depopulation.

Scotland’s farmers have already suffered massively as a result of Brexit, with loss of access to the single market and higher supply chain costs, not to mention the impact of continuously rising energy costs. Our farmers need and deserve our support, not more uncertainty and a brutal hammering from a Government that either does not know or—worse still—does not care about the net effects of its budget decisions on farming communities here in Scotland.

I am sure that we were all dismayed to hear a leading Labour voice proclaiming that we do not need small farmers and that they can be done away with, akin to the miners. Whether it be mining or farming, we cannot continue to allow UK Governments, of any colour, to have the deciding say on Scotland’s most critical industries. Our farmers deserve better.

We must all collectively remember—indeed, we forget much to our peril—that the vast majority of farmers own land to feed the nation, not to dodge tax. They work, sometimes for less than minimum wage, to put food on our plates. How can we plan for food security with such folly coming from those who seem to know very little about the farming way of life?

Thank you, that is very helpful.

The witnesses have already answered a few of the questions that I had, but I would like to take some time to explore a little bit about whether discrimination will occur if neurodivergence is included within the definition of mental disorder. Will you also talk about Alzheimer’s and the issue of fluctuating capacity that we heard about from the earlier witnesses? Does either of you have concerns with regards to those two issues?

I remind members that my entry in the register of members’ interests states that I am a member of the Humanist Society Scotland. I have a quick question for Lynda Towers. The Law Society’s submission expresses concern about solicitors being used as proxies. My understanding is that, as the bill is currently drafted, they would be involved in the process by having to sign for somebody who is physically unable to do so. Will you expand a little bit on why the Law Society has concerns in that regard?

That is very helpful. I have a follow-up question. For the purposes of the bill as it is drafted, and with the existing law—the 2003 act—as it stands, am I right to infer that neurodivergence would be included in the definition of a mental disorder, versus what may come forward from the Scott review at some point in time?