Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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?

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?

Thank you for being here. One of the reasons behind the petition that the committee has been asked to look at, or certainly something that is relevant to it, is the “Report on the welfare of greyhounds used for racing in Scotland”, which was produced by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission. It says:

“a dog bred for racing in Scotland currently has poorer welfare than the average of other dogs in the population.”

Will you respond to that? What do you think of it?

One of the things that we are interested in, following the evidence that we have heard previously, is what the future of this pastime looks like. The only places in the world where greyhound racing is still legal are—please keep me right—the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, three or four states in the US, Mexico and Vietnam. As we have talked about, there is now only one place in Scotland where it happens. We heard in previous evidence that the attendance at Thornton has been declining. I do not know whether that is true or whether you can offer any insight into that. Is there a decline in the number of people who are involved in this activity?

The bill sets out that people who are interested in or affected by the making of muirburn will be consulted when the muirburn code is being prepared or reviewed. In practice, that would probably also include when it is being revised but, for the avoidance of doubt, my amendment 94 seeks to set that out clearly in the bill.

Amendment 73 would clarify the consultation requirements in relation to preparing, reviewing or revising the code of practice. It seeks to ensure that the Scottish ministers or NatureScot consult people whom they consider are

“likely to be interested in or affected by the management of land to which a section 16AA licence relates”,

whereas, currently, the requirement is to consult

“any other person they consider appropriate.”

The purpose of the code of practice is to provide guidance about managing land to which a section 16AA licence relates, so it is fair to have a requirement that the people who have to use the code should have a hand in developing it. I understand that that is already the case, to an extent. NatureScot is already taking a collaborative approach to developing the code of practice, and a working group has been established to that end. Amendment 73 would simply make sure that that collaborative approach continues.