Chamber and committees

There is a deadline and we have not been able to scrutinise the effect of the SSI. We have no idea what the NFUS has said about it. In the past, there has been concern around rebasing the LFASS—I will call it that.

If you do not mind, Christine, that is the less favoured area support scheme.

Okay—sorry about that, Christine. I was just being clear.

There has not been a consultation to allow stakeholders to give their views. The Government is leaving it to secondary legislation, which is being based on feedback from the ARIOB to which we are not party. It is important that people other than those in the NFUS are able to have a say in how the Government delivers the £65 million.

We also do not know whether the payments will continue to total £65.5 million in the 2025-26 budget. There needs to be consideration of whether the Scottish Government will continue with LFASS payments beyond 2030, because the EU has discontinued them and moved on to something entirely different, and the SNP Government’s policy is to align with Europe. The committee would like to know what the future holds, because it is not long until 2030. The minister is asking us to ensure that the payments continue, but how are we to know what farmers in general think about the current payments for active farmers?

For example, the LFASS rules say that active farmers would usually own stock, but we know that stock levels, including livestock, are contracting across Scotland, which is a concern. There are young people who want to get into farming, and there is a concern that those who are not necessarily actively farming livestock are unable to access LFASS. We should be supporting young people who are coming through the system to ensure that farming in Scotland has a successful and prosperous future.

I am sorry, minister, but that is incredibly rude.

No, it is rude.

Can you explain why?

My comment is on the record now, convener. If people who are affected by the instrument pick it up, they can contact the committee.

Does that translate to the role that the marine directorate will play? Ronan O’Hara has just spoken about how we can use technology and data to improve biodiversity, address climate change and increase socioeconomic benefits. Do you see opportunity for that in the next national marine plan? Have we made progress since 2018?

I move to Rachel Shucksmith. The Marine Conservation Society told the committee that the regional marine plans in the Clyde and in Shetland have been delayed for years. What effect could a lack of marine planning potentially be having on those areas?

I have a quick follow-up question. You are saying, in a way, that you might agree with John Goodlad, chair of the salmon interactions working group, who said that it would be easier for the consenting regime to be “attuned to being flexible”, and to allow fish farms to move offshore away from the mouth of the river. Currently, are the regional marine plans flexible enough, and how do they fit in with the national marine plan?

Amendment 60 would require the 2010 code of practice for the welfare of dogs, which was introduced under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, to include the animal welfare good practice that people should follow when acquiring a dog or transferring a dog to another person.

The 2010 code of practice for the welfare of dogs is centred on five areas: the need for a suitable environment; the need for a suitable diet; the need to be able to exhibit normal behavioural patterns; any need to be housed with, or apart from, other animals; and the need to be protected from suffering, injury and disease.

As currently drafted, the bill will create a new and separate code of practice alongside the existing code. As noted by the Law Society of Scotland, that could create a risk of

“overlap or contradiction between the existing code of practice”

and the one that is

“envisaged under the Bill.”

Amendment 60 seeks to minimise any potential confusion among the public by incorporating the proposed code into the existing one. An amendment to that effect was suggested when the Dogs Trust told us during committee proceedings that it was

“really keen on there being streamlining, so that there is one code of practice, if possible”.

The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals stated:

“Having multiple documents is not an easy way of proving that somebody has managed to grasp all that knowledge if they are required to look at various sources of information. Our plea is to keep it simple and update or revise the existing code, because it would be better from a practical point of view to prove whether a person should have had that knowledge as part of an investigation.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 20 September 2023; c 10, 13.]

Moreover, as currently drafted, section 6 of the bill makes it clear that a breach of the new code would not be an offence in and of itself. Amendment 60 would provide for improved practical enforcement through the existing 2010 code in relation to animal welfare investigations.

Amendments 63, 65, 66, 71, 73, 74 and 77 are the relevant consequential amendments to amendment 60. They would remove all sections of the bill that would create a new and separate code.

Although my favoured option is for the code of practice to be incorporated into the 2010 code—for that to happen, it is necessary to remove sections 1 to 7 of the bill—I appreciate that my amendments might not gain support, so I will support several other amendments to sections 1 to 7, as they would improve the bill.

I look forward to hearing from the minister on the incorporation of the new code into the existing one.

I move amendment 60.