���˿���

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.

I will not speak for very long, but I will come in on a few of the amendments very quickly. I have quite a lot of sympathy with a number of the amendments in the group, with the quite large caveat that inshore waters have deep cultural connections with our rural communities. I am always a bit nervous about doing anything without having taken evidence on it, and we did not take evidence on this during the stage 1 process.

Maurice Golden brought up IFCAs, which have great potential—I have looked into what is going on in England. They can be a bit of a mixed bag, though, as they are quite resource intensive. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will come in on this in a minute, but my understanding is that the inshore fisheries improvement programme is looking into IFCAs and is meant to come back with proposals early next year. My gut reaction is to have huge sympathies for what Maurice Golden is trying to do but to feel that it might be a tad early and that it would be best to wait for the inshore fisheries improvement programme to come back.

Sarah Boyack mentioned blue carbon. I am not against her on that, but I think that it is crucial that we have detailed knowledge on it. My understanding is that the science on it is not quite there yet, and I worry that we might harm our fishing sector if we push ahead before we have the science and a full understanding in place.

Spatial management has come up a number of times. Again, I am not against spatial management, but it has to be flexible to ensure that everybody’s future needs are met. We do not know what is going to happen in the future, and I worry that putting something inflexible in place might cause more harm than good.

I am actually sorely tempted to support Ross Greer’s amendments. In truth, Ross Greer has a point. The figures are outdated, and we do not want to put the great fishermen that we have right across our rural communities at risk from illegal fishing activity. So, in fairness, I think that he made a very valid point.

I fully support Douglas Ross’s amendments. I raised the issue before, and the fisheries protection planes are still sitting there in Inverness. It was a real shame that the pilots and the organisation behind Airtask were not given much notice, and it caused them quite serious problems. I welcome Douglas Ross’s bringing the issue forward.

I do not have the date in front of me, but it was in the press: it was widely—