Chamber and committees

How does the First Minister respond to reports today that Brexit has cost Scotland up to £100 million a year in salmon exports? Companies have faced increased costs due to the hard Brexit that the Tories forced on Scotland, and Labour, too, has now reportedly rowed back on its pledge to renegotiate the United Kingdom’s Brexit deal. Does the First Minister agree that, in continuing to endorse Brexit, both the Tories and Labour are showing little regard for that vital industry?

The member did mishear that. I merely asked, as others have, whether there are some forms of agriculture that we might want to ask questions about in the future—forms that require less support than others. That does not mean that we do not support—[Interruption.] That does not mean that we should stop growing grain for whisky, as the member well understands.

I agree with much of what the member is saying about the need for greater certainty in the support that is given to farmers. However—she knows what I am going to say—does she also accept that there is a need for greater certainty on the funding envelope from the UK Government, under which we will have to build an agriculture policy in Scotland, if we are to achieve any of our aims for agriculture?

No, it is not just what I said. The member well understands that point.

When I gave way, I was making a point about posturing by the Tories—a point that has just been illustrated more adequately than I could ever have done myself.

Despite that posturing, we know that there has been a wider catalogue of failures on the part of the UK Government to protect the interests of Scottish farmers and crofters. The obvious example is Brexit itself, about which others have rightly spoken today. However, there has also been the UK’s abject failure to secure trade deals that protect our agrifood sector.

Despite all of that, our farmers and crofters remain resilient, and the Scottish Government is determined to support them as we transition from the EU’s CAP payment system to a support system that realises the vision for Scotland to be a global leader in sustainable agriculture.

There lies ahead a long process of scrutiny. However, for the moment, I urge the chamber to do as the committee has done and endorse the general principles of the bill.

The Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill and the secondary legislation that will follow it will have far-reaching effects across rural Scotland. The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, on which I serve, has not been idle in taking evidence on the bill. It has already visited farms, held round-table events and received evidence in person and in writing from a wide range of stakeholders. The voices that we have heard have represented not only farmers and crofters but many others who likewise have a stake in rural development, the environment and questions of food security.

Like others, I thank all members of the committee and the clerking team for their work in producing the stage 1 report.

Parliament will now scrutinise the bill closely, as befits any legislation of this scope and scale. With Scotland being forcibly removed from the European Union, the common agricultural policy, as we have all understood it for half a century, now requires wholesale legislative replacement.

As others have pointed out, this is a framework bill. A wide range of voices in the countryside have recognised that that is the best way to proceed. Indeed, a framework bill is the only practicable solution, and it is therefore inevitably only in secondary legislation that many of the questions about the future direction of agricultural policy will receive their answers. However, I have to refute what I think was said in the previous speech, which seemed to suggest that secondary legislation does not involve scrutiny by this Parliament.

The objectives of agricultural policy, as set out in the legislation, take on a particular importance. The overarching objectives of agricultural policy are set out in part 1, which lays out the Scottish Government’s vision for agriculture—a vision that has been broadly welcomed by stakeholders and that commits to transforming how the Scottish Government supports farming and food production.

The aim is to make Scotland a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture, and a requirement is placed on Scottish ministers to prepare, lay before Parliament and publish a rural support plan. That plan will cover up to a five-year period and must set out the strategic priorities for providing support during the plan’s period. It must also give details of each support scheme that is in operation, or that is expected to come into operation, during that period.

The plan also allows ministers to make clear how agricultural support contributes to other statutory duties, such as climate commitments and EU alignment. Such a plan offers a level of certainty, which was sought by many through the consultation, within the flexible support model.

Making those objectives into policy on the ground will ultimately involve wrestling with some clear tensions. To cite but one such question, we will have to ask how we reconcile the need for food security, including production at scale, with the need to support forms of agriculture that have a low environmental impact. That has been alluded to by other speakers, but I think of my crofting constituents who, on average, receive £1,400 each in annual farming payments. I hope that we will ask whether that is the balance that we want to see in the future.

As a committee, we have also pointed to the need to recognise that we cannot simply offshore some of these big questions rather than answer them effectively ourselves. I think that we all agree that there would be no point in simply asking areas of the country that cannot easily support much agriculture beyond livestock to stop producing livestock. That would not, of itself, change the demand in Scotland and the UK for meat; it would simply transfer its production to parts of the world that have far lower welfare and environmental standards. At the same time, we are going to have to ask contentious questions about whether the need for national food security should be taken so far as to include subsidising the large-scale production of grain for whisky.

Many of the answers to these and other questions about Scottish agriculture depend to a very large extent on the UK funding envelope that is made available to Scotland in the first place. Despite the posturing of the Tories—[Interruption.] I hear some posturing from the Tories, so I will give way.

Notwithstanding the suspicions that Rachael Hamilton has expressed about the reasons for having a framework bill, will she acknowledge that the evidence that we received at committee was overwhelmingly in favour of a framework bill?

On that previous point, can the cabinet secretary say whether the Scottish Government has assessed the impact of capital budget cuts to Scotland by the United Kingdom Government on providing free digital services or other projects under the education portfolio?

As a member of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, I can confirm that the bill has been the subject of rigorous debate and scrutiny since it was first brought to the Parliament. Despite some of the more colourful comment, I believe that, in the end, the committee managed to steer some sort of middle path and improve the bill. At stage 3 this week, members have gone through the legislation in the chamber with a similarly fine-toothed comb.

As was pointed out at stage 1, the bill deals with subjects as disparate as raptor persecution and rat traps. I will deal with the latter first, as they were raised as an issue in amendments at stage 3 this week. The Government and the committee faced no simple task in reaching a workable solution. However, I hope that we have reached a reasonable solution this week by seeking to move glue traps out of use by the general public while retaining residual powers for the Government to deal with any scenario, such as an outbreak in a healthcare setting.

Perhaps a more substantial part of the bill’s scope is that which deals with the issue of raptor persecution. Raptor persecution is, by its very nature and location, a crime largely committed without witnesses. I hope that the bill that we have put together provides the means that we need to finally tackle that issue more effectively. We certainly received much evidence that the criminal standard of evidence that currently applies around raptor persecution is proving virtually impossible to meet.

I do not doubt that the vast majority of land managers are working within the law. However, a licensing scheme around grouse moor estates is a proportionate response to ensuring that raptor persecution, where it happens, is tackled. Indeed, when so many other areas of activity operate via a licensing scheme, I think that such an approach is a more proportionate response than some of the criminalising alternatives.

Snaring accounts for a substantial part of the bill. I believe that, with a ban on the use of snares, we are aligning Scotland’s criminal law with that of other European nations.

On the issue of muirburn, the bill has been improved in a number of ways. A number of the amendments that were lodged at stage 2 recognised that not all the alternatives to muirburn were necessarily practical and that allowance should be made for that fact. I am pleased that an amendment in my name that made that point was accepted at stage 2. The committee heard evidence from a variety of sectors, including the crofting sector, that wanted to make sure that that and other issues would not be overlooked. I believe that in that area, as in other areas of the bill, improved wording has been arrived at.

There are areas of the bill that, for some interest groups, will always remain contended and contentious. That is the nature of any legislation that touches on biodiversity, animal welfare and land management practices. The bill addresses all those issues. However, it is a necessary and balanced measure that has been subjected to a process of rigorous scrutiny and improvement, and I believe that that means that we should vote for it now.

Okay. Thanks. I have one other question. The SAWC also specified what it thought were the risks of racing at independent tracks. I appreciate that you are in a strange situation, as you are not here to represent the independent track. I know that your association is with GBGB. Nevertheless, do you have any experience of the track at Thornton or any views about the standards there?

You mentioned how it works with vets, in your experience, at Newcastle. We are also keen to know how it works at Thornton, where there is no resident vet. Daniel, have you raced dogs at Thornton? How has it worked with vets? Have you needed vets in a hurry?