 Welcome to the second meeting of the rule affairs on the island committee in 2024. Before we begin, I can ask anyone using electronic devices to please switch them to silent. Members will note that we have revised agenda for today's meeting, and that our stage 2 consideration of the wildlife management and mureburn bill has been rescheduled. Before we move on to consideration of our first item, I thought that it might be helpful to set out the reasons for this. Dwi'n wneud oesrion gweithio nowe gan wnaeth eu cwm 전rhyw wneud, mae'r adwerthu yn cymdeithasol yng Nghymru yn cynnig am ymddi losol. Ar bod y pandemys ar y cwm yn cael ei gweld i'n cynnig yng nghymhysgol yma, ymlaen, mae'n enw i'r cwm yn gyffeniadau, yn cyblom yng nghymgyrch, ac mae'n cael ei gweld i'r yn cyfrydd yng nghymhysgol a rai o'i gwygen paddag yng Nghymru a'un gafael eiddw i lawr i gwneud o gael o'r dael. fleon i'r ddisigol y bydd hi ddod yn cael llwyddiad yng nghymru, ond yn cael bod ni'n o arrangements ond o'n cypinwys i gyfaluwyr o'r ystodion a'r ddweud o gwirio iechyd yma i'r dyma i llawer i gynexu'r deiligol i gyd, sy'n mynd i'r rhaglen i'r ddeuwn, a i ddweud o'n cyfaluwyr o ddweud o'r llwyddiad i'r dyfliadau a'r rysgau. AYSYR ALLAN I appreciate the arguments that you have made there. I think that it probably came in something of a surprise, certainly to me. I appreciate that it's no fault of the people who can't make it here for the weather, but we have conducted meetings of the committee online or partly online hybrid meetings in the past. We did that through Covid. We have other committees certainly have handled stage 2 proceedings, and while the decision may ultimately be your discretion, we didn't really know about this. I think that I would just want to register my curiosity about what we do in future if one person or two people can't make it, and how we avoid the situation that we don't delay legislative proceedings indefinitely. I think that one of the things that everybody has done a huge amount of work, and to have had this dropped very late in the afternoon, I understand that it's you as the convener's prerogative to change the agenda, but it would be very nice to have no surprises. We've had this discussion before about no surprises, very late changes to the agenda, and I accept that there are weather conditions, but I don't know about other members, but I've certainly had an awful lot of stakeholder engagement once the decision was made that this would be suspended asking why this was happening. There's a great deal of disagreement amongst stakeholders, and I just think that it would be useful for all of us to be able to know if you are planning to make a decision that I think is a very big decision to reschedule a stage 2, that at least we get some indication that there's a conversation going on so that we can have it in our own, I don't know about everybody else, but I was working a lot to get myself prepared for this meeting, and I just think that no surprises principle is quite a good one to have as a convener for the rest of the committee members. Thank you. I'm pleased that you recognise that the convener has no control over the weather, but I'll just reiterate the reasons for doing this, and unfortunately trying to give advance notice is difficult when we're dealing with weather conditions, but it's my wish for proceedings of this committee to be as effective and allow informed debate as possible. For that to happen in this case, there was no adverse impact on our future work programme by delaying proceedings by two weeks. I very much appreciate the work that has been done by stakeholders, but that work still is valid and will be equally as valid in two weeks' time when we do consider it. I look forward to Tuesday, it's early Wednesday, the 7th of February when we will take part on stage 2 consideration. I appreciate that you won't like me saying that, but can I suggest that we move to a vote on whether we revert to the original agenda or not? That's not competent, but thank you. We'll now move on to agenda item 1, which is consideration of the code of practice for the welfare of pigs revocation Scotland notice 2023, which is a document subject to parliamentary approval and follows the affirmative procedure. I welcome Gillian Martin, Minister for Energy and Environment and officials Andrew Vos, the veterinary head of animal welfare and Grant McLarty, the Solicitor from Scottish Government, and invite the minister to make an opening statement. Thank you, convener. The purpose of these draft regulations is to amend the welfare of farmed animals Scotland regulations 2010 to put a statutory duty on those responsible for looking after farmed pigs, to be acquainted with our new guidance for the welfare of pigs. Amongst other things, the 2010 regulations require that those responsible for farmed animals are acquainted with any relevant animal welfare guidance and have access to that guidance while attending to the animal. Non-compliance with those requirements is an offence. Each time a new guidance document is published or revised, reference to this new document must be added to the definition of animal welfare guidance in the 2010 regulations. Those draft amendment regulations do just that. The new guidance for the welfare of pigs was published in November last year, so the purpose of these draft amendment regulations is simply to add the new pigs guidance to the definition of animal welfare guidance in the 2010 regulations. The revocation notice that we are also looking at today is simply to revoke the existing but outdated code of practice on the welfare of pigs at the same time. The combined effect of those will be that the old pigs code of practice will no longer be enforced and the requirements that had been enforced in relation to the code will now apply in relation to the new pigs guidance. I am happy to take any questions that any of the members have. This is the third similar type change from code of practice to guidance. Can you tell us where this has also been applied and why there is a general move away from code of practice to guidance? There are two previous guidance notes that have been part of this that are set for meat chickens, the welfare of meat chickens and the welfare of laying hens. The committee will have had a letter from me that set out the reasons for this. The reason why we have moved from a code of practice to guidance is that that guidance could be published, revised and updated very quickly. As you will appreciate issues around animal welfare, farm animal welfare in particular, it has put a fast-moving scene. We could have recommendations coming from various animal welfare commission or whatever that we think needs to be applied. That guidance is available for people who are farming these animals and working with them to ensure that their welfare is as good as it can be. Things like the accommodation that they have, the conditions that they have to be housed in, for example, are a couple of examples of where that guidance looks at. You talked about it, and one of the benefits is that new guidance can be brought in very quickly. That would suggest that there are parts of the process and that developing that and putting that guidance in place is different from a code of practice. What parts of the process are dropped from a code of practice? Where are the safeguards, the checks, the consultation, whatever that are removed to allow it to happen more quickly? I want to say what the fact is that we still consult with stakeholders ahead of compiling the guidance. That part of working with stakeholders, animal welfare agencies, the farming community and what should be in that guidance is very much a consultative process that officials undertake. The difference between a code and a guidance document is that, although we give the committee notice of a guidance document, we would have had sight of it in November. I do not have to undergo parliamentary scrutiny in order to be applied. As you will appreciate, we are under the great deal of pressure in terms of timing of the work programmes of committees, and we also want to be able to be fleet of foot when it comes to updating or changing guidance. What this is doing is swapping out one document that is outdated for a new updated one and doing that reasonably quickly so that people have the right information when they are farming their animals. The process is speeded up by removing the ability for Parliament to scrutinise it. Is that a good thing that you are removing parliamentary scrutiny? There is always the—this is something that my predecessor took forward, Manny Macallan, when she was minister in this portfolio, where she set out the rationale for this change in policy to the committee when she was minister in terms of what they were going to be doing around changing the code to the guidance. The reason is to make the process more streamlined and quicker, because it takes time for codes to go through a process that requires parliamentary scrutiny. When you might have a situation—I was thinking of a situation where there might be quite pressing updates in animal welfare that would need to be applied quite quickly. The decision was made that, although we were not going to, with the guidance, remove any of the consultation and working with stakeholders on all of this. I imagine that you have looked at the guidance that we are talking about. It is very straightforward. It is effectively advice on how animals—pigs, in this instance—should be in the conditions that they should be in and everything in terms of their welfare that should be adhered to. It is straightforward. It is not so much any change in policy, because the policy is really in the act, but the 2006 act in particular, the 2010 act in particular, is no change in policy. It is really just a change to guidance. On that basis, what is concerning is that it would effectively look like Government are taking more power and giving Parliament less, but that guidance could be used for enforcement purposes in a similar way to codes of practice, which would suggest that the change from codes of practice to guidance is simply that the differences are that we remove all parliamentary scrutiny, which in effect gives the Government more power. I am not entirely sure that it is a case of power. We are talking about guidance here, not about policy change. But he does say that it could be used for enforcement. I think that, even in the codes beforehand, it would give an idea for any enforcement agencies as to the standards that are required for the welfare of whichever animal we are talking about. Although it is not a case of binding, the binding aspect of it is that it should have access to the guidance. To be quite honest, the guidance and the codes were very similar. It was something that England and Wales were also looking at. DEFRA was proposing to issue guidance that was jointly owned by the Government and Industry. We decided that our guidance would be Government-led, Government-owned, which means that we can ensure that the whole range of stakeholders' views are taken into account. Stakeholders are broadly content with that approach. They have been content with that approach for laying hens, and they have been content with that approach for meat chickens as well. What is happening today, what we are putting forward, is not so much the policy change from code to guidance, because that was done by my predecessor in front of the committee. What today is actually a very technical instrument that is swapping out the pigs code of practice to pigs guidance on pig welfare. This is just a curiosity. You are talking about how your consultant with stakeholders is a requirement, or is that just something that the Government does as a matter of course? There is not a requirement, but we do not operate that way. It is not in our interests, and it is not in the interests of the sector for Government to act in a way in which we produce guidance in a vacuum. That guidance has to be something that the stakeholders are invested in. It has to be done in collaboration with them. In order to land properly, in order to be used, and in order to be trusted. That is the approach that we will always take to anything like this that we produce. There is nothing that compels us to do that, but it is good practice. That was the point that I was trying to get. This is a collaborative approach that the industry is very much behind, and they can see the value of it. Just before we move to that supplementary question, were there formal obligations or requirements for consultation under the code of practice? Well, I may have passed it to Andrew because he was involved in the code of practice. Yes, there is a formal obligation to consult on a code of practice, but there is not that formal obligation to consult on guidance. As the minister said, we obviously did consult very extensively with the industry and had very detailed discussions with a large number of interested parties in preparing the guidance. That revocation of the practice and introduction of the guidance removes the requirement for consultation. Yes, but maybe it is worth me that I have gone over what I imagine Ms McAllum would have said to the committee at the time. The move from welfare codes to welfare guidance documents was discussed in advance with all the key stakeholders. Before the publication of that first guidance document, the then minister asked officials to discuss this change further with animal welfare organisations and the sector, and they were content with the move. Officials had further discussions off the back of that with one kind, compassion and work farming, confirmed that they did not raise any objections, and they had consulted with the sector. The position remains that, since those guidance documents have been put in place for the laying hens and for the meat chickens, there has been absolutely no pushback as to the guidance documents rather than the codes of practice. I suppose that what I wanted on record was that that removes the requirement for formal consultation. You have just confirmed that. Yes, but there is consultation that still happens. Of course, the decision to change from the codes to the guidance is already something that has happened. What today is doing is adding another document to that guidance and removing the outdated guidance. We have had no concerns about this expressed to us, but it could be in the future when the guidance has changed that we do get concerns coming to us about that, especially when there is no consultation with the committee. What would we do in that case? Would the minister appear in front of the committee to discuss those concerns? I will always appear in front of the committee if they have concerns on anything in my portfolio. I am not going to sit here and say that it is only if there is a formal reason to have something. If you have concerns on guidance, I would really be hopeful that that would not happen. The reason why I do not think that it would happen is because guidance and changes to that guidance in the future would be done in consultation with all stakeholders well in advance of that guidance being changed or published. It is good to have that backstop. Any further questions? No. We move on to the formal consideration of the motion to approve the notice. I invite the minister to move motion S6M-11748. I move that the draft welfare farmed animals Scotland amendment regulations be approved. Thank you. Does any member wish to debate the motion? I have read the wrong thing out. Can I just revise what I said? I move that the code of practice for the welfare of pigs revocation Scotland notice 2023 be approved. Apologies for that mistake. Are we sure that as the motion S6M-11748 that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the code of practice for the welfare of pigs revocation Scotland notice 2023 be approved? Any member wishes to debate the motion? No. Is the committee content to recommend approval of the notice? Finally, is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off our report on our deliberations on the notice? That completes consideration of the notice. We now turn to consideration of the welfare of farmed animals Scotland amendment regulations 2024. Gillian Martin, the Minister for Energy and the Environment and our officials are still with us, Andrew Vos and Grant Clarty. I invite the minister to make an opening statement. I don't have a further opening statement to make on this. I think I've included everything in my original statement. Thank you. Any members have any questions? No. We now move to the formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument and invite the minister to move the motion. I move that the draft welfare of farmed animals Scotland amendment regulations 2024 be approved. Does any member wish to debate the motion? No. Is the committee content to recommend approval of the instrument? Finally, is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off our report on our deliberations of the affirmative instrument? That completes consideration of the affirmative instrument and that concludes our business for today. I now close this meeting.