Chamber and committees

In relation to Douglas Ross’s amendments, it is great that you are going out and speaking to communities but, ultimately, it would be better if the powers and the licensing functions were in the hands of local authorities, rather than with NatureScot. Why not make that move now?

Amendment 324 would put a duty on ministers to protect prime agricultural land. It would also mean that environmental target-setting action would not involve such land and that such targets would not reduce the amount of it, meaning that there would be no net loss of prime agricultural land.

It is estimated that, by 2050, a quarter of farmland across the UK could be lost to housing, solar farms, tree planting, biodiversity projects and carbon schemes. The impact on our food production, supply and security could be staggering. Time and again, environmental developments such as solar farms are established in rural landscapes—and not just on derelict or empty sites, but on good farmland that could be used for growing crops. Amendment 324 would ensure that good-quality farmland would be protected for what it is meant for: growing food and protecting our future food security. I would be interested to hear the cabinet secretary’s thoughts on that.

I will be supporting my colleague Rachael Hamilton’s excellent amendments 289, on rural crime, and 290, on energy infrastructure, both of which consider the impact of those significant factors on food-producing land. Rachael has compellingly campaigned against the rise in rural crime and its terrible impact on communities across Scotland, and I am very happy to support her campaign and her two amendments.

I move amendment 324.

I thank the minister for allowing us the opportunity to have a wee discussion on this.

Can the minister confirm what he meant in his previous letter to the committee when he said that estates did not adhere to the letter of the law?

I agree with you, and you have reminded me that I should declare my interests as a small farmer and as someone who applied to the FFIS and did not succeed, which is, as Jamie Halcro Johnston said, fine.

I go back to the point that I was making. The committee can safely vote for amendment 324 today. The cabinet secretary has agreed to release some information, but we need the clear information that Douglas Ross spoke about. If the information is provided, by the time we get to stage 3, we might be able to take Douglas Ross’s amendment 336 out.

Jamie Halcro Johnston makes an important point. I was an agricultural consultant and, if we go back in history, during the rural stewardship scheme and the countryside premium scheme, there were often times when the money was entirely used during the first year and, in subsequent rounds, the number that had to be reached was very high and we were never really very clear about what got in and what did not. A good review of that every year would help all agricultural consultants across Scotland to make sure that they are doing their best work for what the Government is trying to achieve as well as for farmers on the ground.

I ask the committee to give serious consideration to amendments 336 and 337. There are good amendments and rural communities across Scotland desperately need the information. I press amendment 324.

I recognise that there is huge value in ploughing down the shells for soil improvement, fertiliser use or liming. In Moray, it is very common for distillery by-products, which are very good soil conditioners, to be used on land. There is a SEPA process that allows for that, but it is quite an arduous process that requires numbers. In relation to cross-compliance and farm assurance, there is a requirement for paperwork and everything else to be provided. That creates a red tape barrier that stops people using the by-products, because it is so much easier to phone up a merchant to buy fertiliser. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, although there might be a process, if it can be confirmed that the shells are clean and present no risk, it will make things easier if the red tape is taken away so that people can freely access and use such products?

I will touch on some of Mercedes Villalba’s amendments. I am sympathetic to amendment 13, regarding urban areas, but my understanding is that, through the Scottish planning system, tree planting is a big part of any new development. I would like to see that progress, so I look forward to hearing from the cabinet secretary in that regard.

Amendment 80 would require the removal of tree seed outside new woodland. Seed can spread beyond the area that is being planted by wind and other means, so it is impractical to try to regulate that activity in such a way. It would be better to ask Scottish Forestry to work with the sector to establish what the issue is and the actions that can be undertaken.

My main concern is with amendment 88, which is, if I understand it correctly, about the removal of financial assistance for “exotic conifer species”. That would include Sitka spruce, which is an incredibly important species for Scotland. Amendment 88 would result in the loss of thousands of jobs in the coming years and make Scotland reliant on timber imports. I do not think that any of us really wants that, given the potential biodiversity consequences for other parts of the world.

The timber market is dominated by softwood from conifers, and Scotland’s only native conifer is the Scots pine, which can be grown commercially only in limited sites in the east of Scotland. The amendment would also completely undermine the role that woodland creation can play in sequestering carbon for Scotland’s 2045 net zero target, as only fast-growing conifers will sequester carbon in that time.

Amendment 88 also ignores NatureScot’s evidence that those forests are one of only a few habitats that have shown improvement in biodiversity this century and that they provide a home for many iconic species, such as the red squirrel and the white-tailed eagle.

In that case, why have licences? If we recognise that there are more and more wildfires and if we recognise the benefits that we are getting from practitioners, young gamekeepers and so on, why not, instead of having the administrative burden of licences, scrap the licensing scheme and have a code of practice or something that practitioners could use and that might protect rural communities more in the future?

I might have missed what you said earlier. Do you think that it is possible to do that before stage 3?

Good morning. To follow your suggestion, convener, I will try to be brief not only with my notes but also by not speaking very much to others’ amendments.

Section 33 of the bill, as currently drafted, removes the requirements for licences to deal in venison. My amendment 321 would enable Scottish ministers to repeal the venison dealers’ licence by regulation at a time of their choosing. By making that an enabling power, there will be sufficient time for the NatureScot app to be integrated to the register of authorised persons, which would make the venison dealers’ licence surplus to requirements.

My amendment 252 would delete the entirety of section 33, and my amendments 322 and 323 would instead give ministers the power to repeal the venison dealers licence by regulation at a time of their approving. It is essential for food safety that there is appropriate, continuing oversight and traceability in respect of venison that is intended for human consumption.

I will briefly touch on other amendments in the group. I fully support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 75 and my colleague Rachael Hamilton amendments 254 and 255, which seek to add a venison action plan to the bill. I strongly urge other members to support those amendments, too.

I move amendment 321.