Chamber and committees

Douglas Ross and Rachael Hamilton have expressed the concerns about gulls across Scotland expertly. My primary reason for coming in is to support them on that. Douglas Ross mentioned Councillor John Divers, whom I know well, as I served with him on Moray Council for five years. I remember speaking about gull management in 2017, 2018, 2019 and every year after that. Clearly, the issue also affects Rachael Hamilton’s patch at the opposite end of the country from me.

I was just about to say that.

Common good funds have been put into the pot for gull management, and community councils have put in money. I also know of businesses and individuals who have put up money to try to solve the problem in town centres. Communities across Scotland, but certainly in Moray, have done huge amounts of preventative work, such as putting more bins on the streets, but we now need help from NatureScot and for the Government to take action. The problem cannot go on for many more years. I fully support what the convener, Rachael Hamilton and Douglas Ross have said.

I have just a quick comment. Despite my fear of Ross Greer looking at me if I do not back his amendments, I have to say that I am actually quite minded to support these amendments. They are very similar to what Ross Greer put forward earlier.

Salmon is an iconic species across Scotland, and some great work is going on in our rivers at the moment. For example, the Dee District Salmon Fishery Board was in the news recently with some work up on the River Dee, and there is also Bob Kindness’s work on the River Carron. As I have said, I am minded to support these amendments.

My amendment 253 would provide for a review to be carried out of the operation and effect of the powers in sections 13, 14, 15 and 16 after five years. I believe that sections 13 to 16, which provide new powers that build on those in the 1996 act, should be re-evaluated to measure whether they have been utilised or been effective.

Amendment 253 is supported by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which believes that the powers in the bill must be evaluated in a five-yearly review.

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?