 Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the 17th meeting of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee in 2023. Before we begin, can I remind those members using electronic devices to please switch them to silent? Our first item of business is to decide to take item 7 in private. Are we agreed? Thank you. Our second item of business this morning is our evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, and we have 90 minutes scheduled for this session. I welcome to the meeting, Mary Gougeon, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, and her officials George Burgess, the director of agriculture and rural economy, and Annabelle Terpy, the director of Marine Scotland. We're going to kick off straight away with some of the questions around the Agribill, so can I ask the Cabinet Secretary for an update on where we are exactly with that and when we expect the introduction of the bill? Yes, the committee will be aware that we had a consultation on proposals for a future agriculture bill, which closed in December last year. We've been analysing the consultation results and will be in a position to publish the response to that consultation shortly. I've outlined previously and we have a commitment to introduce an agriculture bill to the Parliament this year, and we're still on track to deliver that. I'm just going to ask about the timetable regarding amendments to the Agriculture Retained EU Law and Data Scotland Act, not to be confused with the other rule bill, I'm sure, but given the ping-pong going on with legislation Westminster just now, I wonder if you can explain the two bills, particularly the Agriculture Bill and its relevance. In relation to that, would that be the amendments that we need in the transitional amendments that we need for the current schemes? Yes, we'll be introducing, as I said in my initial response, the Agriculture Bill this year. We also published earlier this year our route map to reform and when we'd be looking to first of all introduce conditions in 2025, and then when we would be phasing the transition to the new framework beyond that in over the years from 2025 onwards. We need to bring forward legislation to extend the provisions in the Agriculture Act 2020. I'm not able to give a definitive timescale for that at the moment, but we need that transitionary piece of legislation to allow us to continue on with the various schemes that we have at the moment, so that we can ultimately implement the route map that we've set out. I will, of course, keep the committee engaged and informed as we look to introduce that. Just back to the Agriculture Bill, it would be helpful to get a clearer indication in just this year, given the timescales that we're going to be working to get a new system in place. Can you be any more accurate or clearer on what this year means? Well, ultimately, I've said that we would publish it this year, but I hope that you can appreciate that in relation to the ministerial code it's not possible for me to give a definitive date until all of that has been agreed by Cabinet and until that's been discussed with the Parliament as well. So I can't give a definitive date as to when that's going to be introduced, but of course we intend to do that as soon as we can. Okay, thank you. Just on that, we've heard some farming sectors calling for 80 per cent of the funding to be to base payments. Can you tell us what your position is on that and also around conditionality? Can you give us some examples of what conditionality might be applied to payments in pillar one? Again, we do hope to, in line with what we published in our route map, set out the information as to when we would be looking to publish information on conditionality, which, again, we hope to be in a position to do very soon. It also set out some of the areas that we could be potentially looking to do that in as well, whether that's in relation to BPS looking at greening, the geek requirements that are there, looking at cross compliance, potentially elements of a whole farm plan—that was all listed in the information that we published. We also mentioned there about potential conditions for voluntary coupled support as well. Again, in line with what we've published in the route map, we will be announcing the detail of that shortly. I apologise just to come back to the first part of your question in relation to the NFUS calls and the budget splits. Of course, those discussions are on-going. I know that that is NFUS's position. There are also other areas, other bodies who have very different views on that. We've committed to a policy of co-development in relation to how we develop our agriculture policy going forward. Of course, we will be continuing those discussions with the Arial Board, with NFUS and our other stakeholders before setting out a position. Is it likely that conditionality in some of the examples that you have given will be on the face of the bill, or will that be introduced after a bill has passed? That conditionality would not be on the face of the bill, and as I have outlined in response to Alistair Allan, that is where we need that transitional provision, using the powers within the current act to allow for that conditionality and that continuity going forward, so that we can deliver what we have set out in that route map. Given how important conditionality might be, we could, as MSPs, be asked to vote on an agriculture bill, which we don't actually know how the payments are going to be made, how much are going to be paid, so we're actually going to be voting blind, given that what is such an important part of the bill, the conditionality on the bulk of the payments, is not going to be decided till after the bill has passed. There will be that opportunity for scrutiny going through. We need a framework piece of legislation, which is what we're bringing forward, to enable us to have that adaptive framework for the future. That's what we set out in our proposals and what we'll be introducing as part of the bill. Of course, we've been working through our consultation responses, so I can't say definitively what's going to be in that at the moment, but the aim would be then for the secondary legislation, which would contain that detail. I understand the calls for clarity, for more detail and for more information. Again, we've set out within the route map when that information will become available. Of course, there is going to be the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny as part of that process, too. I'd be interested to hear a couple of questions in this area. One is about supporting farmers who already want to grow more fruit and veg or plant protein. As you know, horticulture uses less land and supports many more livelihoods in rural areas. I'd be interested to hear what you're thinking about supporting more people to grow food in Scotland. That's what we've set out in our vision. I hope that in the debates that we've had in Parliament over the past few weeks, we've emphasised the importance of producing our own food. We set out in our vision for agriculture that we want to produce and meet more of our own food needs more sustainably, which is exactly what we'd be looking to do. Specifically in the area of horticulture? What are your thoughts on that? In relation to horticulture, it's a vitally important sector to Scotland in terms of the fruit and vegetables that we produce. We know that there are a number of issues that are affecting the sector at the moment, but it's something that we would want to see and encourage to see people to become involved in horticulture going forward. We also have various schemes. I know that there are various projects. A few in my constituency are looking at community-supported agriculture, and there have been various schemes that we have supported through that, which I think are really important, because all of that is about strengthening our local supply chains and shortening our local supply chains, which of course also meets the objectives that we want to set out in the good food nation plans that we will be producing to. I've got another follow-on question, which is more about the less favored areas. I'm getting contact from people who are crofters who are concerned about inflation having an impact in their less favorite areas when they're with their sheep and cattle farming. I think that one opportunity that we have with the change in policy is the diversification of what they can do. I'd just be interested to hear if the Government is considering or can you confirm that farmers in less favored areas will be supported access funding for projects such as the first grant schemes and things like that so that they can diversify? We also want to ensure that the grant schemes that we have at the moment, if there are improvements that can be made that we are doing at the same time as well. The committee will probably be aware that we've had a consultation which just closed within the past couple of weeks about improvements to the forestry grant scheme and what we can do to remove some of the barriers that people face in accessing that. I'm really trying to overcome that because we want to see more trees integrated on farms. We have an integrated trees network as well, which we like to direct people to to show exactly how that can be done. Of course, those kinds of opportunities are really important, but I also just want to emphasise that I recognise how important the less favored area support that we currently provide is. That's why we've committed to maintaining those level of payments as they are at the moment, but we also know the importance of that kind of support going forward, so that's work we'll be continuing to do as we set out on our roadmap as we look to build the future framework. George. A brief supplementary point, if I may. An important part of the agriculture bill consultation was actually looking to make sure that tenants and crofters are not barred because of the nature of their tenure from participation in schemes. You'll be that, environmental schemes, be that, are the forms of diversification, so it's certainly something that we would support. Over the last month, it's been the agritourism month, and I think quite a number of MSPs will have seen good examples in their own areas of a form of diversification that is bringing in significant income for holdings. Thanks very much, thanks for confirming that. I've got two brief supplementary from Jim Fairlie and Rachel Hamilton. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary. I'm just looking for a go back a wee stage to what the community was talking about in terms of the conditionality and how that is going to be implemented. Just for folk who maybe aren't as afraid with the system that works how you get a framework bill and then later legislation. If you've got a framework bill and you set something out in the face of it, that becomes the act. If you've got scope then to bring stuff in later to help achieve the objectives, is that why the details and the conditionality have to wait until later? Does that make sense? We would have the details of what the requirements say for tier 2 within the new legislation. That would be set out in secondary legislation. The details are the measures to be included within that, and that is ultimately to allow for that flexibility in the future so that we don't have to go back and amend primary legislation every time. It also means that we can adapt or add or change those measures in relation to if there are innovations in agriculture as an example. It provides us with that flexibility and that adaptive framework that we'll need for the future so that we have more flexibility than what we have through the currency schemes. If we put everything right at the start that would be it fixed and then you would have to amend primary legislation in order to change anything as things develop. Right, okay. That's a clarification that I was looking for, thank you. Rachel Hamilton Clearly there is a call to maintain the direct payments in tier 1 and 2. The arguments are made on the basis that currently farmers are looking at efficiencies, they're looking at improving the environment and all the rest of it. If we get to a stage where we remove that payment without clarity, it means that they cannot plan for the future. We know that the livestock industry is contracting and we know that that genetic bank of high quality livestock will never ever be able to be replaced. So what impact study has been done on what you're saying in pushing this down the line so that we look at it beyond primary legislation? We're not pushing it down the line though and I think that again what we did with the route map that I published in February was to set out a very clear timescale as to when changes would be introduced, when the information about those changes would also be made available to people exactly to enable them to plan. So that's where it sets out that very clear timetable in relation to that, to try and give that comfort about information. I would say that we're not removing any payment without clarity and as I've said before in chamber and I'm keen to make that commitment again and to be clear that we're not going to see any cliff edges when it comes to support and people accessing schemes one day and then they're gone tomorrow. I absolutely appreciate how important this is and for people to be able to plan their future and to plan their business and the need for that longer-term clarity and security. But again that's why we've committed to maintaining direct payments because we recognise how important that support is for our food production and to enable our farmers and crofters to continue to undertake the good work that we're already doing. So again we've set out that route map with that clear timetable saying when more of that information will be available. Just to be clear and give you an example of where individuals are concerned. I spoke to a group from the islands yesterday. We know how important livestock farming and crofting is in those areas and particularly less favoured areas. There are suggestions that they are hearing that instead of livestock farming which is so important to their economic livelihood that suggestions that trees will be planted in for example Westray where they can't grow. So I think the government need to be very clear in terms of the communications around the tiers and around the sustainability of the future for farmers and crofters. I mean I don't know where those suggestions have come from but I'm more than happy to follow up with you on that and to hear those particular concerns. But again as I set out in the debate last week and I absolutely recognise the importance of livestock farming to our island communities where there are some parts of the country where there aren't as much opportunities for looking at other measures they could take or other types of farming that they could look to undertake. We've committed there will still always be a place for livestock farming in Scotland because we do it here and we do it here well and that's going to continue into the future. So again I'm more than happy to follow up on those particular issues and I think if there's and I do want to be clear in that communication as well and I think it's frustrating hearing some examples like that because I want to make sure that the messages we are sending out are reaching everyone which I think if you're hearing those examples then that's not the case and I think that if there's any suggestions as to how we can improve our communications we're looking to do that as much as we possibly can especially because I think we have so many examples too of the types of well we have different networks our agriculture by diversity climate change network our integrating trees network where we're seeing so much good practice undertaken as well we also have our our farming advisory service in relation to that too we want to make sure that we are looking to engage with as many people as possible and again that's what we try to do and provide that more of that clarity and information through the route map and direct people to look at that as well as the list of measures that we publish to give an indication of what things might look like in the future and to actively seek that feedback too because we want to hear that to hear how these measures might work. I want to move on we had information from me earlier in the year about the national test programme can you give us an update on where we are at the moment with it? Yes I'm more than happy to in relation to the national test programme and track one of that programme I think the last time I appeared in front of the committee we were looking at fairly low figures in relation to the carbon audits and soil tests that had been undertaken at that time and I think it said then that you know anecdotally we were hearing that you know more people were intending to claim but I think the final figures that we had when that claims window closed I think we've had over a thousand tests undertaken so I think just over five that's just over 500 carbon audits and then the rest made up with the soil tests that have been claimed as well and that has meant that I think over a million pounds worth in funding had been allocated in relation to that and then we that's not to mention though the carbon audits that had already been undertaken via the farming advisory service and I think we had 500 carbon audits undertaken in relation to that as well in relation to track two of the programme we had undertaken a survey quite a widespread survey we had about a thousand responses to that and that was really to get more of an understanding of the understanding and uptake of sustainable and regenerative practices across the industry so that was I think we were quite pleased with the response rate that we had in relation to that and the in relation to that survey as well I think it found that the majority of people had undertaken an action whether that's a carbon audit or looking at nutrient management planning but that survey was also important just to help us identify what the motivations for people undertaking these actions were as well as looking to identify what barriers or what would be preventing people from undertaking any specific action so it's been really helpful in that sense and getting those used back so what would those barriers be I think some of the the key barriers were in relation to knowledge and support being able to progress with that I think that access to to funding was also identified as a potential barrier but George I don't know if you have any further information to add in relation to that I think those are the those are the main points coming out of the survey what's been happening more recently is more detailed work with a smaller group drawn from the the thousand that the cabinet secretary mentioned so around 60 of those that responded there's now detailed one-to-one work with them so looking at the the list of measures that we set out in February so working through with the individual farmers to say okay well this is the list of measures how would this work for for you so that that's all feeding back into the to the design of the scheme we're also picking up feedback from NFUS and their members I heard yesterday some quite positive feedback from the the arable sector on on the list of measures that they they are really quite favourable so I'm presuming that you're taking these from across the country yes all four corners because it's a topography right okay thank you can you these figures are quite disappointing you know given your soil testing what's actually been the outcome from that have we seen changes in in fertilizer or whatever when you compare it to island 41,000 farmers have applied for their lime scheme which will show almost immediate improvements in soil fertility are you disappointed that the schemes at the moment are really not delivering and can you give us an idea of why that's the case I mean I was glad when I saw the figures increased towards the the end of the claims window which I think was what we had heard or what we had been expecting to see of course we want as many people as possible to take the support that is there to undertake these actions but we also know people already there are a lot of farmers and crofters who can already undertake soil testing and who undertake carbon audits so we really are trying to incentivise that as much as possible now it was the first year of the programme so I hope that you know this is a programme that we're running for the next couple of years to that we'll see that continue to build and see that interest build so that we will see more more audits and more tests coming through and we really want to encourage that because it's about those individual businesses getting their baseline and see where they can make those improvements from there but that's also why we want to build on the test programme as we go forward as well so continue that support for the carbon audits and soil testing that's why we've added the animal health and welfare plans for this year the support for that too and we do hope to also add biodiversity audits to that programme. Where are we seeing any positive outcomes because doing a test just doing a test so that's not positive in itself and given a farmer a couple of hundred quid to get the vet to come in doesn't do anything where are we seeing the positive results so once again harpen back to island we see the results of soil testing but 41,000 farmers applied for lime grants on the back of their testing so where's the improvements because testing is just the first step have you done any research into what benefits that's actually resulted in and the same with animal health tests? Well again those are elements that have only just launched in terms of the individual actions that would have been taken on the back of those audits I mean those are just the figures that have been claimed up until that point yeah George I don't if you want to come in on that but I think just before we get to that as well I think it's I absolutely agree with your point it is all very well undertaking a test it's about the actions you take on the back of that that are really important so that's where we've also offered as part of the soil testing 250 pounds personal development funding to enable that to encourage that that upskilling and to enable people to undertake that nutrient management planning but in relation to I mean a detect a criticism in relation to the what you're the funding that's been offered for animal health and welfare but that scheme hadn't been designed by us that was with farmers and crofters with our chief vet with our key stakeholders to look at a package that would incentivise that to happen not just to undertake a plan but what are the meaningful actions that will have an impact for these businesses and that's how that programme was developed and I believe so far from the feedback that I've certainly heard in Georgia don't you fund more information but that has been that package of support that's available has been well received yes indeed I mean this there was a meeting of the british veterinary association here in the parliament just a couple of weeks ago and feedback there was that the response had been had been good and I think vets are encouraging their their customers to to participate in the scheme on the soil testing obviously the impact is for the individual farmer what they will discover about their soil and their ability to adjust you know the amount of lime or fertilizer that their their themselves using so it's going to be down at that individual scale that the benefits will be will be seen the promises will be output driven how are you going to record those positive outputs outcomes I should say sorry positive outcomes how are you planning to record that well I think it's also the actions that and the measures that people will be undertaking that will also be critical in relation to that too but again that's where some of the measures we've outlined and what we're looking at for potential inclusion as part of a future framework are really important and getting the feedback on that and again that's where the track 2 of the testing programme comes in because that's about that more detailed and in-depth work with farmers and crofters to see right how do these measures work work together and how do we we see those improvements Rachel Hamilton quick point on this because we've heard in evidence from various members of ARIOLB and other stakeholders that it's very difficult to work out what the baseline is to then work out what the outcome is in terms of environmental benefit particularly because farmers have spent spent and I made this point to you in the chamber thousands upon thousands of pounds already meeting these measures doing the soil testing spending their own money because they know that investing in their own money reduces input costs and it increases productivity and efficiency so how is the government going to ensure that those individuals who've already carried out those measures are being rewarded and where is the baseline going to start I know I think that's a really important point and one that I think have been raised a number of times in the debate last week is about that recognition and I think that's certainly one thing I hear when I'm out and about and visiting different farmers and getting about the actions they've already undertaken now we know we've got a lot of work to do we want to initially incentivise those people who haven't undertaken these actions to do that and to get that baseline information but I think that that is where I mean that's fundamental to our thinking and our planning going forward that we do recognise and award that work that's already been taken going forward George yes I mean we're very clear that we're not we're not penalising those that have already as you say been taking the right action so many farmers will already have been doing soil testing they are still eligible to to claim through our scheme it's not like some of the banks who offer the good interest rates only for new customers actually we're making sure that those that are already undertaking the right actions can benefit from what they've already done in the same way that those that we entice into taking these measures and good morning to the panel can I ask for an update in regards to climate change plans for Scottish agriculture particularly in terms of the emissions targets please I guess we are currently we need to provide an update to the climate change plan and set out our policies for meeting targets so it works on going in relation to that and I believe the plan is due to be published later this year yeah okay our is the progress on that plan is it being derailed in any way or do you feel that it is progressing in a timely manner and what was expected of it it is really challenging in terms of meeting the emissions envelope that we have set out and I don't think there's any getting around that whatsoever so obviously we have really stretching targets to meet that we need to reduce our emissions by as at 2.4 megatons of CO2 by 2032 we know from the work that had been undertaken through the farmer led groups and combining all of those measures together I think that takes us to a one megaton reduction so we know we've still got that gap to meet so the challenge is there it's a challenge we're trying to to work through together to see how we can address that and meet that gap so that's where we are considering what further work we can do our policies we can take forward to enable us to do that okay thank you just very very briefly and it knows a topic we've touched on before the livestock numbers in Scotland and you know there was previously consideration or or worries that the scots government we're going to look at some sort of scheme that would reduce livestock numbers can you once again on record say that the agriculture act when it comes into force will protect the livestock numbers that we currently have and avoid a reduction which might get us closer to that critical mass which would result in a rapid decline in livestock industry in Scotland first of all I would say there is no plan to cull any livestock in Scotland again I said last week that I support our livestock industry I see a strong role for that and our livestock industry continuing into the future because we produce livestock well in Scotland and that will continue we do not have any policies to actively reduce livestock numbers now but I would like to separate that from the point of putting it on the face of a bill because as I've outlined what we would be putting bringing forward in legislation is a framework bill that wouldn't be the place to put a specific issue or a commitment like that in so I hope that you can you can understand that but I want to be absolutely clear and unequivocal in my in my comments today in relation to supporting our livestock sector thank you I'm Jim Fairlie thank you very much can we find the strange we're talking about Irish agriculture when they're predicting a cull of 200,000 cows but anyway can you give us your expectations regarding the future agriculture funding support schemes in the longer term and do you have long-term security of funding from the UK government given that they are the source of 96.4% of the funding that comes to agriculture in Scotland? We don't have that clarity of funding going forward and not beyond 2025 which makes it really difficult to plan obviously we've come from a scheme where we had we work to seven-year programmes through the cap but right now we're working on yearly budget allocations which of course makes it really difficult to plan for the future okay we currently receive I think it's about 17% of the annual UK budget that's spent on agriculture there is some concern or I'm perhaps being confused that that gets barnatised as this develops have you got any indication at all from treasury of what the level of funding is going to be and if they did barnatise the funding what would that mean for the Scottish pot to be able to deliver to Scottish agriculture yeah I mean in relation to any discussions now when the Bureau of view was undertaken there was a commitment within that that there would be that further discussion about future allocations and how that would work we've continued to pursue that with the UK government since that time to try and have that discussion and again discuss what future funding will look like but despite pressing for that those discussions have have never taken place but George I don't know if you would have anything further to add to that um as Caroline the secretary says there have been no discussions despite a number of requests for it um I wouldn't want to go down a sort of barnat formula rabbit hole here but just maybe a little bit of clarity the barnat formula is not about absolute so it wouldn't be saying ah well Scotland will get a population related share of the spending in England the barnat formula works on you know increments or or decreases so it would be quite a complicated process if if that was what the treasury decided to do we've we've we simply have not had any discussions with treasury on this and as the cabinet secretary says the key point is that we simply do not have any clarity on funding beyond the beyond the next few years have you tried to have discussions with the UK treasury on whether or not there's going to be future funding yes we have and we've raised that repeatedly with the defras various secretaries of states that we've had throughout that time as well but as yet there has been no response okay johnny hall told the nf us in a previous cact committee that if we took an elm's type approach in scotland funding and we phased out direct support and things such as less favour area support and more disadvantages that this would be a death knell for scotland agriculture now i'm taking from that we're talking about areas like less favour areas because we had a different scheme in scotland to support less favour areas could the UK internal market act then have a an issue for the funding that's coming to scotland if we wanted to adopt a different policy that's been the concern through the passing of the subsidy control act because we felt that that could constrain our ability to create our own bespoke policies in the future i mean england have developed the elm scheme and i think it's only right and fair that we develop schemes that work for our farmers and crofters in scotland and that recognize the very distinct and unique challenges that we face here elfast was a particular area of concern because we felt that that was one area because of subsidy control that could be open to challenge if that was a scheme we decided or if we decided to continue a similar scheme to that in the future now i believe that there have been some guidance there has been guidance in relation to agriculture that's been published but i think we do still have concerns about that we didn't think that agriculture should have been included in the subsidy control act in the first place that was unusual for that to be done i don't think we've had any of the the consultation analysis shared with us as to why that should be included within a subsidy control regime but i'll pass over to george you might have more information particularly on the guidance point too yes agriculture is treated differently in terms of subsidy control at the world trade organization level at european union level so as the cabinet secretary says we simply don't understand the rationale for lumping it in with with other sectors in the in the domestic scheme jodd can i answer with that not concern you that you don't know why they've lumped it in given the fact that the the funding that comes to agriculture is almost double what the barnatai system would be and i know i keep going back to the barnatai system but that is generally how cash is generated other than the block grant so does it not concern you that there's been no explanation as to why that that was the approach that the UK government have taken it does and i think as the cabinet secretary has said on a number of occasions we we expressed our opposition to that and asked for that that justification but very little has has come back by way of justification and of course the act the subsidy control act provides opportunities for individuals to challenge so you know defra might be fine with with our proposed schemes but it would only take one person that can mount a case that you know they can't claim whereas a you know a farmer a crofter in scotland or wales can claim and a challenge could be could be brought forward and that that adds to the to the uncertainty right okay one final point convener um the summit that rysi suhnag herald the number 10 down street is very welcome the the change in direction that they seem to have in the UK government from the farm to fork i was incredibly disappointed that you weren't actually invited to that event given the fact that we are supposed to have a four nation approach um was there any reason given us to why you shouldn't have been at a discussion at UK level as to what was going to be happening with the the farm industries across the UK i just want to clarify so in relation to that devolved administration ministers were invited to that consultation i to the event sorry downing street george had been invited to attend so there was official representation there but again it was something that came in a very short notice i think about a week's notice beforehand as well and just to say the issues about our involvement in that given the devolved nature of what was being discussed is a point that we've raised at the inter ministerial group and the other devolved administrations as well very last point convener i think it's absolutely very important that we get UK Government ministers to come to this committee to answer the questions that we continue to raise with the Scottish Government and can get no answers because they can't get answers from the UK Government thank you allister alan thank you we can cover that last point but my question was was really about um how the Scottish Government prepares for the possibility that the UK Government really does go in a different direction obviously the Scottish Government is indicating their commitment to actually farming in a way that we haven't heard this clearly from the UK Government so have you any concerns about your direction of policy being undermined by a radically different direction from the UK Government on that point? I think the concerns broadly relate to the subsidy control act and the measures through that as well that there could potentially be in the future challenges to policies that we would look to introduce or look to have here again recognising the very distinct and unique circumstances that we have in Scotland and how our industry is different to England as an example of that so I think it's we're still to see how that develops but I think it's frustrating that we didn't need to be in this position where agriculture was included and we had because we're now in a position where we actually have less freedom and flexibility because of the subsidy control act than what we would have had as members of the the EU in designing our own policy so I think it is one that we will have to carefully consider as we continue to move forward and develop our own policy. Cabinet Secretary again last week in the chamber John Swinney following a question from me said that the 33 million from the BUE funding that he deferred when he was finance secretary would be returned to the agricultural rural budget he didn't give a time scale he said in future years now we know what Shona Robison the finance secretary said on Thursday with regards to the financial black hole and the precious facing Scotland in terms of taxation so cutting spending or increasing taxation what do you have a timeline that that 33 million will be returned by? I don't have that definitive timeline yet but I will of course be continuing discussions with the deputy first minister as to when that would be returned to the portfolio but I think it just want to be absolutely clear as well that that money was a ring fenced it has to come back to the portfolio it can't be spent in other areas so it will be returned to the portfolio but it's the details on the timeline that are still to be determined just for clarity because you know I don't know where this money goes has it been allocated to something else but needs to be found again I don't suppose you'd know that answer but it looks to me so if it's sitting somewhere it can just come back but has it been used and it needs to be found and returned yeah I'll hand over to george we can explain more of the detail relation to that uh the removal of that money from the the right portfolio allowed the Scottish government overall to reduce its spending and and and achieve a balanced budget so it's not like the money is sort of sitting in a bank account somewhere but we have the commitment already expressed by the previous deputy first minister and again by the current deputy first minister that ring fenced money will return to the portfolio in a future year now our central finance colleagues will have the the difficult job to find that within the overall Scottish Government budget to make sure that it comes into the portfolio of course as we've already said we have no certainty over the funding from the UK beyond two years out so we might come to a point not very far down the line where we really really need that money to come back in to plug a much larger hole okay that was in a previous financial year though so that can't be related when is ring fenced not ring fenced because if you've taken 33 million out of a ring fenced budget surely it's not ring fenced it helps us again as george outlined i mean it helps it's almost like a alone going back to the center i don't know yeah if that's the most adequate way to to describe it which must be returned in future years so it's not real ring fenced it is really fenced it's just not in the budget anymore it's different from any other Scottish Government funding which could move from health to education to to transport this money is allocated for agricultural purposes it can only be spent on agricultural purposes but it wasn't it was taken out the agriculture budget and spent on something else it will come back but it was wasn't it the 33 million was taken out the budget to be spent on something else it was it was taken out of the budget it wasn't spent it as i tried to explain earlier it allowed the overall spending of the scottish government to be reduced to to hit the the limits so it was used for something other than the agriculture budgets which we suggest it wasn't ring fenced it was offered as a saving it wasn't spent in another area i think that's what george is trying to make clear it's not very clear can i can i ask i'd be happy to follow up with more information and to detail that if that's helpful but it wasn't spent in any other areas it was offered as a saving it was just not in the agriculture budget even though it was ring fenced just on on on this just what is exactly we're talking we've heard about barnett formula consequences and we've heard how different agriculture is in scotland and it needs to be viewed differently what is your ask of the uk government when it comes to spending specifically is it 650 million each year infinitum is it more than that is it inflation linked what is your specific ask of the treasury with regards to the agriculture budget because it then if you were certainly unclear what their ask of the scotland government was regards to that so i actually what are you asking the uk government for and how would that money be formulated if you like well would essentially be asking for our fair share of funding going forward because we're already facing a shortfall in what we were promised on the back of brexit that agriculture funding would be replaced in full which it hasn't been so we've got a 93 million pounds shortfall so we would at least be expecting that so you're looking for 720 million again we would welcome we would of course welcome more funding from the uk government but i think that you've got to so this is really really important you need to have an ask are you going to ask for 800 million this year and next year you've talked about multi-year funding how are you going to pull together that ask is it 800 million is it 900 million how will you negotiate that will it be a ring fenced i just need to have a clear mind because we asked the nfu this and they weren't actually clear they said well 650 million that's fine more or less we'll have that next year but as long as it's multi-year what are you actually asking the treasury for do you have to put a business plan down for what you foresee the spending agriculture over the next five ten years as and have them approve it in which case that wouldn't suggest agriculture's devolved what is your actual ask of the uk treasury over the next five years that's the thing i mean all these points that you're talking about it's not as straightforward as going and asking for us a set you know x million pounds in funding as i've said we would at least be expecting the previous promises to be fulfilled and for that shortfall that we've got to be addressed but the whole point is that we need to have that discussion on allocations we need to go through this what's your position in the detail we need to discuss that with the uk government i mean i can't set out the committee today a definitive figure because we need to have the discussion on how these allocations are going to work going forward but again we're not even getting that far but you've said you've asked for this discussion over and over and over but what we need to know and the Scottish farmers need to know is what your position is do you see this as a fixed grant and how do you come about that is it you agree your agriculture policy and you go at the treasury and say we need 800 million to fund this what's your policy going forward what's your ideal situation is it inflation linked is it what is it because that's completely unclear what you're asking for the treasury is i would simply say it's probably not a best way to begin a negotiation by broadcasting what your starting point and your fallback is so i think it wouldn't be a good good thing for us to do at this stage i don't think that the farmers in scotland will think that that's a good position they want to have some sort of clarity not so that you don't have a position on your ideal scenario whether that's 800 or 900 or a billion going forward how that would be formulated how you'd work that out no i again i think we're getting into questions here i think first of all is it george is set out it's not appropriate for us to discuss right here right now what we would be looking to go into that with but again i think Kirby, I don't think that we've got that point. We still have the critical points that need to be addressed. The complete lack of clarity, the shortfall that we have so far, which at least needs to be addressed in the interim in which we would expect to be addressed going forward. And we want to have that discussion about what an allocation would look like for Scotland as was promised through the bill review, which has yet has not been fulfilled and where we are being ignored. What clarity are you seeking? I have already outlined that going forward. We need to have a clarity and a certainty over what that funding is going to look like because we can't plan beyond 2025 in terms of budgets or even getting an overall figure of what that looks like, which means that we are constrained in what we can do, so initially we want that clarity, but the most important thing is having that first conversation and taking that forward, which isn't happening. Alasdair. On that point, presumably it doesn't come down to what you ask for, it comes down to what you're given. Were things simpler when you had a regime of seven-year funding as used to be the case pre-Brexit? Yes. So if you want a seven-year funding that's one of your asks, so that's one of the things you can ask the Treasury. The next bit is how you're going to formulate your ask. Is it going to be based on environmental schemes? Is it going to be based on production? How would that be reviewed over a seven-year period? I would have thought that's a fairly straightforward question. What is your position on what your desired outcome might be, rather than waiting for clarity from the UK Government? I don't know how you can base that. Again, we need to have that conversation going forward. Ultimately, we want to be able to design a system and to be able to fund a system that works for us in Scotland and not to have those constraints from the UK Government. What constraints? Again, the ones that we've talked about so far in relation to what we could face in relation to the potential policy constraints on what we design going forward, we've talked about the multi-annual funding as well. But again, I think you're trying to pin me down on responses that I can't give you today. The important thing is that we need to make sure that we're getting the shortfalls addressed and that we're at least starting to have those conversations, which haven't begun yet. It's a bit hypocritical. You can't tell us about the 33 million shortfall, never mind any other shortfalls. That's not hypocritical at all. I think you're confusing points, which aren't remotely related. I would suggest that the position on the 33 million isn't unlike the uncertainty that we get going forward. I would disagree with that, because the 33 million will be returned to the portfolio and must be spent in the portfolio, whereas we don't know what funding will be allocated to the portfolio or how much we will get or when that will come. I'm quite surprised. This is new to me, the whole thing. I'm surprised to learn that the policy aim is to have 21 per cent Scotland covered by forest by 2032. I don't know if that would be terribly popular with lots of people, but I'd like to develop this. Is this going to be Sitka spruce? I remember the whole of Galloway just being covered with Sitka spruce. Also, I understand from the Scottish Land Commission maybe an unintended consequence that has increased in land values. I'm learning as I go in asking things that may be very stupid, which I'm well known for, is that grants have a great deal to do with the criteria in getting grants, a great deal to do with what is planted and where. I appreciate the consultations just concluded this month. Can you give me your thoughts on how the grant system might operate? Maybe it's premature, but how the grant system might operate? We get the kind of trees in the right place that the community and farmers in the main are content with to reach their 21 per cent target. Just to say, I mean, I don't think that there are stupid points at all, and these are the issues that we're grappling with, because we absolutely do want to see that the right tree in the right place. It's about how we have that mix of obviously supporting commercial timber industry that we can utilise in Scotland as well. I think that's really important, as well as having that mix with native tree planting. First of all, it's about getting the balance of that right too. It's too early for me to talk about what changes might be made to a scheme, given that the consultation on that just closed within the past couple of weeks. I think that we had over 200 responses to that, so we'll be analysing that before setting out what changes there could potentially be going forward. That is really about trying to identify what the barriers are at the moment and how we can support that better integration of trees on farms. Can you advise? Do you agree with me, therefore, that we did things wrong in the 60s, 70s and 80s when large swathes of galloway, for instance, were planted in Sitka spruce, which wasn't good for the environment, and there was only a sort of boundary of native trees to conceal them? It's really just a great big harvesting crop. Do you agree with me that these days are gone, I hope? I think that we definitely learned lessons from what's happened in the past as well. Again, it's about getting that mix right, and again, just as you talked about, trying to get the right tree in the right place in relation to that too. You mentioned the timber industry in Scotland. I thought we'd lost it, actually, because certainly we haven't, Mr Burgess. We've not lost our timber industry. Obviously, there are several things that, in my view, proper forestation can do for wildlife, for the climate, but also for industry. Mr Burgess, is that part of your thinking about how the kind of forestation will go ahead? Forestry is not my area specifically, but I can think of several significant timber businesses in Scotland, and progressive be that in Ayrshire and near Inverness as well. There is a pretty active timber industry. Are they processing Sitka spruce or is it other? They will be processing everything that's available to them. Just for the record, we know the portfolio to change somewhat. Can you tell us, cabinet secretary, exactly what your responsibilities are with regards to forestry? I know that it's not just agroforestry. What are your remits? I've assumed the responsibilities that previously sat with the Minister for Environment and Land Reform in relation to peatland, forestry and land reform. Okay, thank you. We now move on to a question from Rachel Hamilton. It's just to ask, cabinet secretary, can you give us an overview of the work that the Food Security Unit are carrying out? Yes, I'm happy to, and I'm happy to keep the committee updated with work as that develops going forward as well. So, as it outlined in the debate last week, we now have the Food Security Unit within the Scottish Government up and running, and one of the initial pieces of work that they'll be focusing on is the monitoring of the risks and potential threats to the supply chain when we had the Food Security and Supply Task Force earlier—sorry, last year—reported. That was a really useful piece of work, because it highlighted where some of those evidence gaps might be, where we need to do further work, and that was a really helpful piece of work in helping to identify how we can then pick up those recommendations and the Food Security Unit can continue that work going forward. So, essentially about monitoring, initially looking to try and identify, of course, it's going to be impossible to see what challenges are going to come down the road or what might affect us, but looking at what we can do in the short term as well as looking to any potential threats that could potentially harm our food security in the future. I think it would be useful if the committee could have an update as soon as possible on the SWAT analysis of the challenges that are facing our farming and crofting sectors. I think that we know why there's been a contraction of the beef herd, for example, down by 12 per cent, I believe. Our critical mass is reducing rapidly. We're down to 413,000 cattle, I believe, now. We are looking at the contraction of our essential protein source, our essential affordable food source. Therefore, personally, what I would like to see the Food Security Unit doing is, first of all, giving, as we've discussed, clarity on the future of the agricultural support scheme, secondly, letting us know what the risks are within the supply chain. We know as well that the Scottish Government have reduced funding for abattoirs from half a million to 5,000 last year. I've got those figures here if you need those. What is it that the Food Security is trying to do other than state the obvious? I've outlined the initial piece of work that they'll be taking forward. You asked for some specific information as to what they're going to be looking at. Is this happening as for speaking, the introduction? Absolutely. Again, I'm happy to come back with further information as to what you asked for some analysis there. In relation to the issues that they'll be considering, I'm happy to provide that. You've also talked about specific areas that won't necessarily fall within the remit of the Food Security Unit, but there will be consideration given to that, such as the clarity on future support schemes. Again, we've set out the route map in relation to that. It's not the Food Security Unit job to provide that information. We will be providing that information going forward as outlined in our route map, which gives the timelines as to when we'll be doing that as well. You mentioned the point about abattoirs and funding there. I would like to, if you could, follow that up with me and send me that further information. I really just want to interrogate the detail of that, because I don't know if that's funding from different schemes, and I really want to understand that more. To say that there are also a number of pieces of work going on in other areas, we're taking forward a pilot in relation to our small holders. Part of the work that they're taking forward is about abattoirs and about our processing going forward. They'll be looking to undertake a survey in relation to that quite soon, because I know that that continues to be an issue. Again, not all of these are specific pieces of work that a Food Security Unit will take forward. Of course, there are links there. Given where the Food Security Unit sits, there will be that crossover. They'll be engaging with colleagues, engaging with wider stakeholders, but there are specific pieces of work there that will be taken forward by other areas. Again, just to give you an example of the conversation that I had with Islanders yesterday, it's really important that the Food Security Unit engages with the individuals who are responsible for transport within the Scottish Government because the unreliable ferry services have caused issues of getting livestock to market. We know that Islanders have been having to supplement feeding because of lack of grassland, for example. They're booking their slots way ahead to get the store lambs off the islands to market, and they are being let down by ferries. There's animal welfare issues going on in the islands because they can't get their livestock. It's a huge thing, as you've already acknowledged, to the wider economic benefit to the islands. If there's anything that I see within the Food Security Unit that is not currently transparent to us, is that cross departmental working? That also follows on from the committee appearance that I had last week when we talked about the national islands plan as an example of that. There is a lot of cross-government work going on, particularly by islands officials, in relating to that. Again, when I've been in Shetland, the other similar issues in relation to that were raised, and we, again, raise with our colleagues across government to ensure that we are trying to tackle those issues as best we can. Sorry, George. We're going to move on to fisheries now, and I'll be pleased to hear a question from Karin Adam. Can I ask what progress has been made on the 12 action points set out in the future fisheries management strategy? Yes, I'd be happy to provide, I don't know if you would want me to run through every single action, but we did publish, I would just point committee to the delivery plan that we published last year in relation to each of the actions that had been set out in the future fisheries management strategy and showing where we are in relation to that and how we intend to deliver against the actions going forward. I think that some key pieces of work that I would maybe draw out from that in some particular examples on which, no doubt, Annabelle will want to add to at some point. I mean, when you look at the first action from the fisheries management strategy, it talks about promoting fisheries as a safe career and a career of choice for people. We have funded sea fish, I think, just over £400,000 to help to deliver free safety training for our fishing industry. We've spent about £2.1 million in trying to encourage new entrants into the industry as well, and we've funded that through Marine Fund Scotland. There's been other areas where work has been progressing in its under way, so the future catching policy is listed as an action in relation to the strategy. We consulted on that last year, and we are due to be publishing the results of that consultation, and we'll hopefully be in a position to do that soon. It's been quite a technical consultation, but I think that when we look to implement those policies, there are really positive steps forward as well. I know that there are also the actions in there about the resilience and connecting to local and enhancing global markets for our seafood as well. We've published a seafood strategy in relation to that. When we talk about the importance of our seafood trade and the confidence and resilience in that too, that's where our other policy commitments are relating to the remote electronic monitoring and vessel tracking are important in delivering that too. We had a consultation on remote electronic monitoring. Last year, I think that we actually launched that at the same time as the future policy consultation. Again, we hope to be in a position to publish the results to that soon. There have been a number of pieces of work that have been under way. Yeah, it sounds like there certainly has. I ask specifically in terms of strengthening co-management processes what works being undergone here. Yeah, and I think that there's actually been more development since the delivery plan was published in relation to that as well. We talked about strengthening our regional insure fisheries groups, so there's been a refresh of that network. We appointed six new chairs there and also extended their reach out to 12 nautical miles, so that's been one development. We've also done a refresh of our fisheries management and conservation group as well and how that operated. That's really about bringing all the different stakeholders around the table and trying to move forward in relation to a lot of the key areas and issues that we face. That new group has been established with the terms of reference. It's a hub and spoke model that's being used for that, so we have the main FMAC group, but we also have four subgroups in relation to that as well, which feed in. We have one on insure fisheries, there's scallops, fishing and climate change, and the last one has escaped to me, but I'm sure Annabel can provide that information as well. We've taken a refresh of that, a refresh of the regional insure fisheries groups, and we're hoping to undertake a review of the regional insure fisheries groups in summer next year just to see how all of that is operating. The four subgroups are insure fisheries issues, scallop fishing, future catching policy and fisheries and climate change issues, and we're also intent to form one other subgroup that will focus on fisheries management plan. To give an example of what the cabinet secretary has outlined there, the subgroup on the future catching policy is actually going to be very heavily involved in this technically complicated, if not complex, policy area, so that we have expertise there and that we're progressing them, progressing that forward. I think that that's a really good example. It's met already. It's got terms of reference and we're planning future catching policy workshops over the summer, which that subgroup will be heavily involved in, because we cannot do this successfully unless we have our stakeholders working with us at the table. Is there any plan changes within the structure of Marine Scotland? There's a lot going on with the national fisheries negotiations. Is there any plan changes within the structure of Marine Scotland? Yes, we are focusing very hard on how we adapt to the increasing demands that our people across Scotland, our communities, our marine industries and the people of Scotland in terms of how we use marine to play our bit in addressing the climate change and biodiversity crisis. We are looking at how we adapt, so we are moving to more of a project and programme model. We are very focused on delivering lots of services in the marine directorate. We do licensing, we do consenting, we provide. Last year, it was £9.7 million worth of science data, depending on whether it's doing our surveys or the analysis of that. We deliver services, but we're also really focused on how we make sure that we can serve the people of Scotland best by bringing people together in teams to deliver our increasingly demanding workload. One of the advantages of that is that we are making sure that we are bringing together people who have got real expertise and real depth of experience from stakeholder relationships in fisheries, fisheries management, aquaculture alongside marine protection. We're looking at that as a whole and making sure that we're sort of looking at that in the round. It also means that we can be quite fleet of foot when we need to. It is increasingly something that I think that we're all experiencing as demands increase. It might be helpful for the committee if you could set out just the changes within the historic structure of Marine Scotland, how you see it going forward and how that can improve the way that you work with industry. That would be helpful. I'd very happily do that and share it since something in writing. Thank you very much. Can I ask how the Scottish Government intends to use marine spatial planning tools such as the national marine plan, regional marine planning, to mitigate the loss of fishing grounds associated with potential HPMAs and forthcoming inshore fisheries management measures? In relation to the national marine plan, as it currently exists, there are no spatially explicit measures in that. I think that in relation to our marine planning, the measures that are outlined in NPF4 and our regional marine plans, all of that looks to develop that spatial planning further. We are currently going through the process of developing a new national marine plan, the NMP-2. I believe that there's going to be a national planning programme in relation to that in the next month where stakeholders can feed into that process. I know that that specific spatial ask is being considered as part of the work that is being taken forward in relation to NMP-2, but I don't know if Annabelle would want to add further information there. Not much to add to what the CAB-Sec is outlined here. Clearly, that's Ms McAllen's area of responsibility. Two things. One is that we know that, as we mentioned in FMAC, working with industries on how we can best strategically engage to join together all the multiple strands of engagements, we're not discussing these in isolation, it's really important. The second thing is making sure that we've got collective reporting across multiple programmes of work so that we can understand the progress. We're also in the future, in the fisheries management strategy delivery. We are going to be bringing forward a consultation on vessel tracking. That's because we know that it is vitally important that we also increasingly, one, listen to, but two, capture as much data and analysis on fishing patterns at the moment and other industry patterns so that we can make sure that we've got the best socioeconomic analysis into this as well, so that we're looking at things in the round. Clearly, we need to look at the environment, we need to look at the community and social impact and we need to look at the economic and marine impact and industry impact in the round, so we're taking forward a whole suite of things which increase our ability to have really good socioeconomic analysis as well. Thanks for that. The crewlers and divers, I hear what you're saying about HPMAs being Ms McAllen's remit, but it is connected and the crewlers and divers that I've spoken with all say that they want to protect habitats for fish and shellfish so that fish become more abundant and our seas can support more fishers fishing for more fish. HPMAs, which are effectively fish nurseries, should be a policy that crewlers would naturally sport. I believe that HPMAs, otherwise known as notake zones, could still attract their support if the surrounding fisheries management measures give crewlers sufficient space and protection from the mobile sector. I'd be looking for your reassurance that the Scottish Government is exploring ways to support low-impact crewlers and divers so our inshores can sustain more jobs in fishing, not fewer. We will be engaging with all these key sectors as we move forward as well. Obviously we've had, even just recently, a number of debates in the Scottish Parliament just considering some of the issues that have been raised and it's really important that we take all of that into consideration as well, but I think that that's also important in relation to the networks. I've talked about the refresh of those networks that we've undertaken. I think that's going to be vital going forward so that we can really encourage that working together, that multilateral engagement as we look to work through some of these issues. I think that I'd like to stress that we want to hear people's ideas. The co-production model is very much based on the fact that, together, we've got all the bits of the answer. Government alone doesn't have any of the answers and it would be foolish to suggest that's the case. I think that if there are great ideas that people have, ideas that they want to try, analysis that they want to share with us, please bring it to us because this is what we want to do. We want to go to an open door policy. We use these stakeholder groups that we've got to make sure that we are getting the best ideas that are out there. In the run-up to the HPE consultation, we did 20 events out and about because we want to hear from people about where they've got ideas and we want to know what's up. I would just like to stress that. Just to follow up on that, do you think that people in the sector, but in general, really understand the kind of shifting baseline syndrome in our fisheries and the level of decline that we're facing and the fact that we've got these legal obligations in terms of managing our fisheries to good environmental status with those indicators and we understand from some of them, I think it's number 11, that the seabed is severely damaged and that's one of the reasons why we need to bring in more protections and that's why it's connected. It's like if we want fishing for the future we have to bring in those protections, but I get a sense that maybe people don't fully understand that we are actually dealing with a very degraded situation, that if we don't do anything now, there won't be anything to bring back. I mean, certainly from the engagement that I've had, I mean a lot of passionate people within each of their sectors who all, of course, greatly value and know the importance of the sustainability of the stocks that they're facing, but that they fish and that they catch. It's not just stocks, it's also the seabed. One of the things is that when I bring these things up it goes to stocks, but the seabed is the critical thing here in terms of fisheries, in terms of bringing the fish stocks back, in terms of that ecosystem that we need in order to see our waters flourishing. Yeah, absolutely, but I think again that that comes back to it. I mean, it's within everybody's best interest to ensure that we have sustainable fisheries going forward. That's what we want to see, that's what the industry wants to see going forward as well. We are seeing some fantastic pieces of work around our coastline as well, which is being led by fishers themselves. We have a couple of inshore fisheries pilots that are on going at the moment, which I think so far are showing us really positive results. There's the mull crab box and we have one in the outer hebrides as well, and I think that all this comes back to what Annabel was talking about there, about working together with the different sectors, bringing all these different threads together and seeing how we can really move forward, because again, I think that everybody appreciates. You know that our seas are changing as well, there's no doubt about that, but I think that we all want to ensure that we have a sustainable sector, sustainable industries going forward and that's what ultimately we want to try and want to get there to achieve. I welcome kind of words like co-production and the like, because I know there is real concern, especially around HPMAs, that these are going to be enforced and talked down to people, and it's a wee bit concerning that that is being done by a different department and this is not joined up, so how can we join it up and how can we make sure co-production works? When I'm speaking to people, they are really keen on making sure that there are areas that are protected areas that aren't, they don't want those imposed upon them, they want to be part of making those decisions and making sure that fishing is sustainable, and in a way a lot has been lost because of that impression, so we need to change that, and I know that creelers and divers are just as concerned as mobile gear boats about this, so how do we involve them all, because they're not going to come to Edinburgh and knock on your door? If I could go first, apologies if I have given the wrong impression, so Marine Directorate is working on both HPMAs, MPAs, fisheries management and FMAC and aquaculture etc, it's that we've got the portfolio responsibilities are split, so Ms McAllan leads on HPMAs and MPAs, and Ms Gujian leads on fishing and aquaculture, but we join up across it, so we are bringing together the people with the expertise to work across this, and one of the things that Ms Gujian and I have been discussing is actually over the summer giving the committee a road map which shows how all these things link together, and I think that that would be, you know, and I think we've done something in agriculture and that's been in agricultural reform and that's been helpful, so that would be if the committee would find that helpful I would like to do that. Ms Gujian, and we are, you know, we are clearly working through the consultation responses just now, the many consultation responses we've got, and as the FM and Ms McAllan has said, we will be doing, well Ms McAllan will be doing a summer tour, and I know Ms Gujian is already meeting groups discussing HPMAs, so that, and we will of course be working through FMAC as well, so absolutely that listening to people is being understood and heard loud and clear. I have to disagree with you, I met with a huge number of Crelias and Trollers on Monday, and first of all they say that the phone rings off the hook to Marine Scotland, they never get any reply, they don't feel listened to, and so I think that is an important aspect to the important issue to take forward. I'm so glad that you are defending the industry in terms of sustainability, cabinet secretary, because there's so much misinformation out there. What I heard from the fishermen was that they're very concerned about their safety, and if they are displaced it means that they already have a challenging role to play to go out and get these protein sources, you know, a sustainable protein source to feed our nation. They will be forced to go into areas that are dangerous and they won't even be able to take shelter, so there are a number of issues that need to be worked through here with Marine Scotland, and I implore you to actually listen to people who know what they're talking about, and I hear what you're saying that you're listening, but actually that is not the case. They were absolutely, they're devastated and they are on their knees, and this committee, there's many members of the committee who agree with me. Oh, sorry, convener. Just to come in on that point, I mean, if you're saying that people are getting in touch and they're not getting any response, of course I want to follow that up because that shouldn't be happening, and we have been, again, I've undertaken to meet with some industry representatives, I think I mentioned that in my committee appearance last week as well, I know that cabinet secretary for net zero is doing the same because we want to do that active engagement and to go out and listen to people. Again, I'm not going to prejudge the outcome or the next steps of the consultation because we are still working through those responses and we'll take that forward. I absolutely appreciate the points which, again, I've heard about as well as the displacement and potential issues that come from that, and of course all of that will factor into any decision making as we go forward as well, but again, just coming back to that point, we recognise the importance of the fishing industry not just to our local, to our coastal communities, our island communities, but also to our wider economy in Scotland, that's why it's an industry we support. We've secured £486 million in our negotiations for our fishers. Annabelle talked about some of the figures and I mentioned them too in relation to what we spend on science, how we're trying to encourage new entrants, what we spend in relation to our compliance, about £22 million on that. We are continuing to invest in our industry because we see a role for it now and we want to continue to see a sustainable industry going forward as well, which is why we continue to support that and why we also recognise the food security elements and the food production part of that within our blue economy vision as well because that is critical going forward. Just bear in mind we're now fast approaching the end of the session if we could try and keep the questions and answers as succinct as possible. I move on to a question from Alasdor Allan. On the subject of fishing, the committee looked at the Clyde cod seasonal spawn enclosure some time ago, as you'll know, Cabinet Secretary. One of the issues that we heard about was the likely need or the certain need for VMS and other forms of monitoring. I wonder if you could say a wee bit more about what monitoring has taken place there. Yes, I'll be happy to. There's been work that's been undertaken by scientists within Marine Scotland together with scientists from the University of Strath Clyde initially really looking at the stock assessments there for cod haddock and for whiting as well. They've been collating the information that we have from scientific surveys as well as the information from the commercial fisheries as well. With that information, they're looking to develop quantitative stock assessments in relation to that. That's the work that's been undergoing in the meantime. Annabelle, I don't know if there's anything further you would add to that in relation to the monitoring. No, but just a little bit, which is that, obviously, over the summer we're going to be engaging with our stakeholders to gather their views into our strategic objectives. Obviously, we'll share the analysis when it's at a point when it can be shared. It's being peer reviewed and being through the usual checks. My other question, I suppose, on that was just to ask for a picture of the time scale. I don't think that there's a two-year process here, so I wonder what kind of conversations you're having with Fishermen. This is a form of science that Fishermen seems to actually be engaged in very well and, you know, VMS monitoring particularly seems to be something with a lot of support, so what kind of engagement are you having with the Fishermen community about all that? Well, you're absolutely right. It's a biennial closure that we've had, so we've had the second closure that we've had now. Just before we introduced the previous one, we had a consultation in the lead-up to that, so we will be undertaking another consultation where we'll be having that engagement. I can't set a definitive timescale on that yet, but that is something that we will be looking to do soon, but, of course, we'll continue to keep the committee updated on that. Thank you. Beatrice Wishart. To go back to a point about misinformation about Fisheries, can I refer members of committee and anybody else who's listening to some excellent papers that the Shetland Fishermen's Association have produced entitled Fishy Falsehoods? One of them on the impact of trolling on the seabed and they highlight that there's scientific evidence showing that the true impact of trolling on the seabed is much less than the loaded headlines would suggest, but can I go on to my question? Could you outline what you see are the key outcomes and challenges for the Scottish fishing fleet to emerge from the latest international fisheries negotiation? Yes, I'd be happy to. I mean, as I had outlined previously in relation to the fishing opportunities that were secured, that's about £486 million, but, of course, within that there are changes in the different stocks from previous years, too. I think that probably one of the main challenges is in relation to monkfish, which I think has seen a cut of around 30 per cent in relation to the tack that's been sent for that. I think that it's really keen that we work together with industry and see how we better develop the evidence base around that going forward, but I think that while we've had that in monkfish, we've also seen increases in relation to other stocks which are looking quite strong. In particular, if we look to North Sea Cod, North Sea Haddock and Whiting as well, where we've seen some quite big increases in relation to that. I think that the detailed information that I set out in a letter to the committee in January as to what those percentage changes are, but I think that we have seen some really good positive moves in relation to some stocks, but again, there are particular areas of challenge in there for some valuable species to us in Scotland. I'm pleased to hear you mentioning about monkfish, given the importance and its value to the whitefish fleet. If more work was done by Marine Scotland to properly assess the monkfish stocks and that could avoid further quota cuts, would you ensure that the importance of monkfish to Scotland is matched by increased scientific efforts? I noticed that Annabelle Tuppey highlighted earlier on 9.7 million in science data. Is there any intention to increase that? In relation to the scientific efforts, particularly in relation to monkfish, we absolutely want to work with industry to see how we can better improve that going forward. That is exactly what we'll be looking to do. We've touched on that already, but the rule bill going through the House of Commons will, of course, touch on, if that's the way to put it, areas of devolved competence and, particularly, some that affect food safety in other areas within the interests of this committee. So, can I ask what the Scottish Government's expectations are regarding the use of powers that exist within that bill by UK ministers? Particularly the fact that we appear to be in terror to where they don't need to obtain consent from the Scottish ministers or Scottish Parliament, rather, about some of these issues. I wonder if you can just tell us a bit about where that debate has reached as it affects your portfolio? I'll certainly try to. It's been a bit of a move-in feast as it's been progressing through the UK Parliament, so I may turn to George who can give some more of the specific details there, but the latest position that we're at, so initially we'd started out a position where all retained EU law was intended to be sunset at the end of this year. Now, thankfully, the UK Government have changed course from that. Unfortunately, a lot of work had already been undertaken to prepare for that, because that was going to be a very significant challenge. Instead, what they have published is a schedule of about 587 instruments on that schedule that they would be looking to sunset towards the end of this year. We had an interministerial group meeting that was on Monday 22 May, where I was asking the Deputy Secretary of State at that time what, if there would be any further changes to that schedule, what the process would be if there was a disagreement in relation to what was on that. I think that there has been continuing movement, particularly over the course of the past week, in terms of how that work has developed. I'll hand over to George. Is this ping-pong between the two houses of the UK Parliament we're now talking about? Yes. The process for the legislative consent had been triggered, but the UK Government had also said that it would be carrying on regardless of whether or not it received that confirmation. That's what's frustrating throughout the process as well. The key concern within all of that, though, is that the UK Government ministers would have the powers to amend or revoke pieces of devolved legislation. There's no consent mechanism within that legislation, so even though they've got 587 instruments within that schedule, the whole of retained EU law and where that relates to devolved areas is open to them. We're talking about thousands of pieces of legislation that they would have the power to change up until 2026. Just on that, what's the Scottish Government's position? How will you engage with the committees because this committee and the net zero committee are probably the two committees that will have the bulk of the laws that are either going to be revoked or reviewed or whatever? How are you going to interact with the committees on those pieces of legislation once those pieces of legislation are set in with the Scottish ministers? I just want to be clear that we absolutely will do that. I think that's what's been frustrating about the pace that this has been moving. We've been trying to get the answers to those questions so that we can ensure that we've got the correct processes in place here. As far as I'm aware, those discussions are on-going, but George might have more information. There was already some discussion on going between the parliamentary authorities and the Scottish Government around the handling of what we expected was going to be a very considerable number of statutory instruments on the original plan to save bits of retained EU law. The change that we've recently seen as the cabinet secretary outlined to moving to schedule to the bill that is repealing the 500-plus instruments means that we will have fewer instruments coming to the Parliament. At this stage, we simply do not know how many those might be. It's probably a smaller issue for the Scottish Government and the Parliament to deal with. Our efforts in recent weeks have been scrutinising the list of 500s to make sure that there's nothing on that list that would be a problem for us. Most of it, fortunately, does seem to be old defunct bits of European or domestic legislation and is not a problem, but we're just making sure that there's nothing that's slipping through. We're going to jump to a question from Rhoda Grant with a supplement from Beatrice Wishart. Just a quick question on crofting reform. We were promised this in the last Parliament and because of Covid, it's slipped. It's really urgent. It doesn't seem a lot to people, but it's stopping crofting development. When is it going to happen and, for a guarantee, it will happen in this Parliament? I've made commitments in relation to that. As I've said, even in relation to the Agriculture Bill, I can't give you a definitive timescale as to when any legislation would be introduced. It's important to highlight the work that's already been under way. I do think that this is really important. Again, I hear that as well, so I just wanted to give the committee an assurance on that front. We've been undertaking work with the Crofting Commission and obviously increased their budget working with them in relation to that, to see how we can start to address some of the issues that they're up against, which I think will hopefully start to improve things in that regard. We re-established the Crofting Bill group as well, so that was re-established last year. They have had, I think, 10 meetings so far and there are more meetings planned. All the relevant stakeholders are considered in that. They've been considering some of the key issues that were raised through the previous committee's report on crofting. I know that this was a point that Alistair Allan raised in his contribution in the debate last week, which, unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to touch on in my summing up as well. There has been quite a good degree of consensus in relation to tackling some of those issues as well. Good progress is being made, so I just wanted to give you an assurance on that front that we are progressing, work is progressing well and that is still the intention, but I will, of course, be happy to keep you and keep the committee updated. Within this Parliament? Yes, that's the commitment that we've set out because we realise the importance of these issues. I'm really on the same subject, but on some of the specifics around it that relate to the wider agricultural policy debate that we're having just now, there are, as you've alluded to, their efforts that have been made to identify the problems of the crofting law summit that exist. As many others have pointed out, there are things like the existing right of veto of a single shareholder in a common grazing over environmental and agricultural projects, and there's also, not that I'll list them all, but the other one is obviously the fact that in some places croft tenancies are changing hands for truly ridiculous sums of money that clearly have nothing much to do with agriculture, so some of these specific issues, is the Government beginning to give thought to them in advance of any legislation? Yes, I think that some of these issues are what are being picked up and discussed through the crofting bill group, but I would say that we are, of course, keen to make progress if there are areas where we can make progress that don't require legislation. That's what we're absolutely looking to do as well, because I appreciate the points that you've raised there today, as well as during the debate last week, so I just want to assure you that these points are very much in the minds of the bill group and the work that they're doing. Thank you. Just to apologise to members, we've run out of time, but there are some topics that we will write to you on, specifically, on licensing activities involving animals. The Government's position now that we're not going to have a kept animals bill that the Scottish Government may have, or may not have been, my need to consent to go through Westminster, also timescales for proposed... Is to ask us what rescue centres and re-homing centres is some of them are quite well meaning, but amateur, if that will also be part of it. That will be part of the consultation going forward, and we'll be looking to announce that and take those licensing proposals in the coming weeks. Okay, that's helpful. We're looking for some more information on the recommendations from the programme board and timescales for the proposed Scottish Veterinary Service, and also timescales for commencing substantive sections of the Good Food Nation and where we are with the development of the Good Food Nation and the setting up of the Scottish Food Commission. Just to give a very quick response, I know that I wrote to the committee, I think that that was in January, with a broad outline for the timetables, as to when we'd introduced the Good Food Nation plan and the commission. We're still working to those timescales, nothing has changed and nothing has slipped in relation to that, and we will be looking to consult on a draft Good Food Nation plan, hopefully over the course of the coming months. Okay, thank you very much. I very much appreciate your time this morning. I'd like to raise a point of order. My colleague Alastair Allan raised a point of order with you earlier on, which you didn't seem to have answered. That is whether or not your language and accusing the minister and her official of being hypocrites was appropriate. The fact that the cabinet secretary has been extremely generous with her time coming to this committee on multiple occasions, I'd also like to ask you those questions. Have we, as a committee, written to the Secretary of State for Agriculture and Westminster? Have we had a response to that request for her to appear here, and what was that response? Thank you. Thank you, Mr Fairlie. I think that the term hypocritical is not necessary in parliamentary, given what we're discussing. I think that it was a hard line of questioning and I'm comfortable with that. With regards, I'll refer to the response that we gave Mr Fairlie last week, on record, that we would write to the UK Government after the meeting that we had with the cabinet secretary. That's a matter of record that was raised last week. Have we specifically written to the minister to ask her to attend our committee, given the number of areas where there is crossover between policies? Mr Fairlie, maybe if you paid attention, last week we said that we'd had a response from the cabinet secretary to say that they weren't able to attend at that time. That is published. It's a matter of public record, so it's on the website. You would have received that correspondence, but last week we also touched on the topic of further information from the UK Government, and the decision was taken a few weeks ago that we would write to the secretary of state on the back of the meeting that we had with the cabinet secretary to raise any concerns that we had from that. You'll see that those have both been covered. Can I clarify? We have written to the secretary of state— Mr Fairlie, I think of a very pure record exactly what you've asked. No, I'm not actually clear on what your response is. This meeting is suspended. Our second item of business this morning is an evidence session. It's consideration of the animal byproduct and animal health miscellaneous fees Scotland regulations 2023. This instrument is subject to the affirmative procedure. I welcome back Mary Gougeon, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, and her officials. We have Alistair Douglas, head of disease control branch animal health and welfare division, and Keith White, the solicitor for the Scottish Government. I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement. Thank you, convener. I'm happy to appear before the committee this morning to discuss the legislation that will introduce changes to the animal and plant health agency fees structure to uplift fees for some statutory services delivered by that organisation on behalf of Scottish ministers and deliver government policy of full cost recovery for those specified schemes. The schemes covered by this instrument being considered by the committee cover animal byproducts, salmonella control programmes, artificial breeding controls, checks on live animals at border control posts and the poultry health scheme for work carried out to allow producers to trade domestically and or internationally. Charges for these services also apply across English and Welsh administrations and DEFRA and Welsh Government also have a policy of full cost recovery and they are also looking to introduce legislation to uplift fees for these statutory services. The animal health miscellaneous fees amendment and revocation Scotland order 2023 amends the poultry compartments fees Scotland order 2010 by revoking provisions, which currently allow value-added tax to be added to fees charged. HM revenue and customs have indicated that statutory fees, which can only be performed by the animal and plant health agency, are out of scope for that, so NOVA is due upon them. Abria has not been prepared on this occasion because animal and plant health agencies have already carried out engagement with the affected sectors to understand the impact of the plan changes to fees and affected industry sectors are fully aware that APHA have been moving to full cost recovery for most of those charges and no significant impact on business is anticipated. I will end my comments there. I am happy to take any questions that the committee might have. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I had some concerns around the charges and I understand that you are going for full cost recovery and the charges currently have not been upgraded for some time, but given most are going up by at least 25 per cent, some are doubling. I wonder if you have considered the impact that is going to have on farmers and crofters going forward. Yes, and that is where there has been a project board, which has been overseeing the full cost recovery, and that has probably been able to tell me what the specific members that are part of that, but stakeholders from each of the administration's areas represented on that as well. I think that they have known that policy is coming, and as I was saying, because of the engagement that is being undertaken by APHA, there is not expected to be a significant impact. We have been overcharging in some areas as well as undercharging in others, but I think that that is where the phasing of the charges and the increases for that is also important. We will be introducing a 50 per cent uplift this year and increasing that to 100 per cent and looking to the 100 per cent full cost recovery next year too, so phasing that in recognising that and not doing it in one fell swoop. I think that the only exception to that, and I'm sure that I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, is in relation to the work at the border control posts, where I think that that's looking to 100 per cent cost recovery this year. Have any producers expressed concern about that, or are they all reasonably relaxed? Is it not a huge part of there? Certainly, as far as I'm aware, we haven't seen any concerns expressed in relation to that, but I don't know if you've heard any difference. The concern is really just about the processes, and that's a continual dialogue that goes on with the Animal Plant Health Agency about efficiencies and savings to make the processes streamline. The fees are calculated using the true cost. However, it's a bit of a coincidence, but we have, this coincides with acute inflation, but there is no reference to inflationary rates. Can you expand exactly how the fees were calculated? Yes, so the full methodology that APHA has developed is going to be published on .gov.uk. I don't have that time, but that's something that can be shared with the committee in advance of that publication so that there's that transparency so you can see how that methodology has changed. Is there any implications or impact with regard to the engagement with domestic and the difference between domestic and international trade? I would have to take that question away, I don't know the answer to that. We now move on to the formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument and invite the cabinet secretary to move motion S6M-08906. 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 a report on our deliberations on this affirmative SSI? Thank you. That completes consideration of the affirmative motion. Our next item is consideration of negative SSI, the animal health, miscellaneous fee, amendment and revocation Scotland order 2023. Do members wish to make any recommendations on the instrument? We will now suspend the meeting for a 10-minute comfort break. Our next item of business is an evidence session with the bill team on the wildlife management and Muirburn Scotland bill. We have approximately 90 minutes scheduled for this session. I would like to welcome to the meeting Hugh Digdon, head of wildlife management unit, Leah Fitzgerald, the team leader from the wildlife legislation team, Sam Turner, the team leader from the wildlife management team and Norman Munro, the solicitor. I will kick off with the first question. It is quite simply, how did the Scottish Government come to the conclusion that a ban on glue traps was more appropriate than licensing? Given some concerns that we heard in the consultation that it might cause problems within such settings as hospital schools and hospitality? I guess the primary driver for the Government's position on the ban on glue traps is the report from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which itself considered that in some detail, the balance of whether some sort of limited use was justified or whether a total ban was the right way to go. We were heavily persuaded by that and we also recognised that there were quite a number of considerable difficulties in trying to operate a licensing scheme when there was no recognised body for the people who would be operating or using glue traps in those sort of circumstances. Do you want to add anything further on that, Leah? Just to add so, we did consider going down the licensing scheme. That was one of the options that we considered. As Hugh said, one of the primary drivers was animal welfare, but we also were satisfied that there were plenty of other alternatives for rodent control that were satisfactory. We also looked at what was going on in the rest of the UK, listened very closely to the evidence that has been brought forward during the debate in the Welsh Parliament and also considered international positions. Glue traps are banned abroad, for example, in the Republic of Ireland, so we looked at what was happening there. We also spoke to professional pest controllers. We contacted all of the local authority pest controllers in Scotland, and the majority responded and indicated that they did not actually use glue traps. So, taking all of that balance of evidence together, we were content that the option for a complete ban was the best way to go. Thank you. Christine Grahame. Yes. I very much welcome the ban on glue traps because the outright ban is the cruelest form of pest control. Can I ask why a similar attitude was not taken to the use of snares? I think that the animal welfare commission might have got this wrong and recommended a ban on the use of snares. Well, the first point says that the issue of snaring is still under consideration, and if we are to bring the ban of snaring, we will do those provisions in time for a Government amendment at stage 2. That is still part of the consideration. I did not hear somebody wrong to cough because I could not hear the answer. I get here you correctly. It is not in the bill as laid, but it is under serious consideration for stage 2 as an amendment. That would must alert the committee that it would perhaps require to take evidence at stage 2, because that is a substantive addition to the bill. We will certainly make sure that any provision that sets out to ban snaring will be with the public and with stakeholders in good time for evidence to be taken before stage 2. I looked in some of the responses and there was a pest control business who had responded saying that they have concerns about ban on glue traps in food-designated areas. Was that something that was considered? Yes, that is clearly one of the key arguments for retaining some of the use in food production areas and also in some sort of health settings as well as in another sort of area. But as my colleague Leah said, there are other alternative means of road and control which are used by other pest controllers and other local authorities, and we are also visiting a transition period to allow people to develop those other use and gain expertise in the use of other techniques. If you ban the use of them, will you ban the sale of them? We have a ban on use on the face of the bill. Our belief is that a ban on the sale would engage the internal market act, so we have been under discussions with the UK Government and we will continue to discuss that with them, but we would like to be in a position ahead of stage 2 or stage 3 to hopefully be able to bring an amendment to ban the sale. As I said, we need to consider that in conjunction with the UK Government and to interplay with that in the internal market act. On something that Christine Grahame touched on, what evidence or what information are you lacking at this moment not to bring in snares on the face of the draft bill rather than waiting to stage 2, which ultimately will reduce this committee's ability to scrutinise their proposals? I think that this is going to be fairly imminent on the direction that we want to take on the use of snares. We have gathered quite a lot of evidence not only from the evidence that has been produced by the likes of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, as Christine Grahame mentioned, but we have also been in touch with snaring practitioners through the land management groups. The piece of evidence that we are still missing or we are still gathering is the land management groups talk to us about new developments in the techniques of snaring and new development that they call humane cable restraints. Of course, we thought that was an important thing, which we needed to take into account, and we also decided then that it would be helpful to seek from them any evidence they may have about empirical evidence on the impacts on welfare of the new humane cable restraints. That is the last piece of that jig, so we anticipate getting all of that as a package in front of ministers very shortly and to have some sort of ministerial decision. Why didn't we just delay the introduction of this bill so it could have been in the face of the draft bill and it would go through the full process? We are only talking about a few weeks? We had hoped to get the position on snaring ready in time for the introduction of this bill. The bill was planned by the parliamentary authorities and our own parliamentary managers. We had hoped to be in a position to have the snaring provisions in, but there were some sort of later developments and additions and new pieces of evidence that we thought were significant that we sought to get before we brought those provisions. We wanted to make sure that we were dealing with the full picture. Rachel Hamilton and Christine Graham Can you just follow that up as a process? It is just a process when it is not substantive. Given that I have taken the bills already drafted and ready to go, it was already. Is it possible for the proposed amendment, which you intend, if happens, to be brought before the committee at stage 1, although not in the bill, in order that we can take evidence on that proposed amendment during the stage 1 consideration rather than have to seek to take evidence at stage 2? That would be helpful to us. When you are saying yes, given that we have recess in four weeks' time, when do you think that is likely? Obviously, we have planning to do and committee sessions around the bill. When will it be available? I would hope that we would be able to do it before recess, but I am not 100 per cent certain of that. Sam, do you have anything on the timing of that? Potentially. I would not be able to commit fully to saying that it would definitely be done then, but that is what we are hoping to do. Rachel Hamilton Just to get clarification, Mr Dignan, on the human cable restraints that you were saying there, that you had information humane from land management. No, I did not, I said humane. I just wondered whether you had consulted with others on those restraints as well, such as vets. Well, I think that is the part of the picture that we are trying to get now, is that the land management groups who have said to us that these are a significant new development in snaring, we have asked them, well, what is the empirical evidence that they improve animal welfare outcomes, and that is evidence which is primarily coming from veterinarians. Okay, so you have that? We have some of it. We have some. The land management groups have said that there may be more to come. Okay, and are they supportive? Those groups that are writing in and supportive, yes, they are supportive. Okay. Thank you, convener. Again, you touched on some of this, but on the subject of blue traps, if there are alternatives available, as has been indicated to you, why is the Government anticipating a transition period at all? Different members of the public will have different methods to use, different professional pest controllers, so it is just to give people time. It is also to give shops time they are currently selling blue traps, just to be able to wind down their stock and to replace it with other methods. It is just to give people time and also to give us time to publicise it and make people aware of the changes that are coming. Thank you. Yeah. Could I ask what is the evidence base for justifying the need for additional regulation of grouse moors? Does it establish an ongoing link between grouse moor and management and rat to persecution, and why is licensing preferred to other alternatives? What other plans did you consider? Well, I think that this bill and the introduction of a licensing regime is the sort of latest and hopefully last step in a long series of government initiatives to tackle rat to persecution that has been sort of associated with driven grouse moors. So there have been a number of other initiatives over the years that have been the introduction of vicarious liability, a pesticides disposal scheme. There have been restrictions on general licences and I think you will be broadly familiar with the history here of whether there was a report into the golden eagle tags which had disappeared or stopped sending signals in suspicious circumstances. That report showed that perhaps up to a third of golden eagles, tagged golden eagles, were disappearing in circumstances that the most likely explanation was wildlife crime. Most of those were on or around grouse moors. So there was a long history of wildlife crime associated with some some grouse moor businesses, by no means all, but certainly that was a clear association. So we have, as I said, there have been initiatives over in the past and I think ministers have throughout that period said that we will continue to take steps until this situation is brought to hold the illegal killing of birds of prey on grouse moors and so we believe that the licensing scheme as was recommended by Professor Warrity is perhaps the most effective way of delivering a meaningful sanction and an effective deterrent to wildlife crime on grouse moors and I guess that that's really what's supposed to the stage. That's why it's in the bill. I'm not sure if that's answering your question Mr Henry. What other alternatives were considered because you've had vacarious liability and doing away poisons as you've said, was there anything other than licensing at this stage and why did vacarious liability not work? So I'll just deal with that point first. Why did vacarious liability not work? I don't think we would accept that it didn't work. In fact we had a presentation in my office from someone from Police Scotland the other day who said in his opinion it had worked, it had a serious deterrent effect but it clearly didn't do the whole job because our raptor persecution continued and I suppose the problem with vacarious liability is it does depend on there being a criminal conviction and that has been one of the long running difficulties in this area, the difficulty of securing a criminal conviction where there are very few of any witnesses and there's no victim able to speak up and these things happen in remote places and so on so that was a problem with vacarious liability. So is that burden of proof? That was the criminal standard of burden of proof beyond reasonable debt, it was hard to establish that, it was hard for law enforcement to establish that a particular individual had carried out an act, a criminal act and to prove that beyond reasonable debt because of the difficulties with it being in remote locations and being a few witnesses in those sort of circumstances. So yeah I mean there has been over the period of at least since sort of 2007 a series of escalating measures really as the government has sought to tackle this issue and I think we're now in a position where we think licensing is justified, we recognise it is quite a significant sort of measure to take that has sort of serious and significant impact on a business that loses its license. I think the next step beyond that would be an outright ban and we're certainly not contemplating that at present but that would be the sort of step that we would see, the only step that we would see that would be sort of realistic and practicable after a licensing scheme. So we are hopeful that the licensing scheme will provide that effective deterrent and that meaningful sanction and I think if it doesn't we don't know where we'd go beyond that beyond other than the ban. Okay thank you. I'll mention from Rachel Hamilton, Rhoda Grant and Christine Graham. Okay so you've mentioned the Warrity report but Warrity said that licensing should only be introduced if raptor populations had not improved. What evidence do you have to suggest that raptor persecution and grouse malls are connected but also have the rates of raptor persecution what evidence, objective evidence are you basing your assertions on because the golden eagle project is now eight years on, it's out of date. So there's two points there. So in terms of the evidence, well connecting grouse malls to raptor persecution. Well I mean as I said earlier that is a long term sort of pattern I think we can look at convictions for raptor crime have been quite often associated with gamekeepers on grouse malls but to say they have not been that many of them considering something like what 160 recorded crimes between 2011 and 2021 so 10 years that 10-year period but most of those or a large number of those crimes which involved raptor persecution were the carcasses were found on or around driven grouse malls. Was there evidence to suggest that I mean what did you use DNA or how did you connect them to the grouse malls or that the persecution happened by somebody that was managing a grouse mall? Well as I say it's a mixture of first of all where there were convictions, they were often people convicted were often associated with the grouse mall business. Secondly carcasses were usually found on or around grouse mall businesses and thirdly there is a clear motivation in terms of controlling raptors to protect grouse stocks to promote the grouse mall business so I think there was some sort of clear hard evidential links and some pretty strong circumstantial links and as I say the can you provide the committee with that specific evidence so that we can just take a look at because I can't see that here in the information that we've got in terms of the wildlife crime report the number of offenses overall doesn't split it into connection with the grouse mall but and also the numbers of raptor persecution offenses are coming down so clearly whatever is happening out there is is working but Warrity did say to the government in his recommendation that if the populations of raptor persecution have not improved then a licensing scheme would be appropriate. Yeah so we can certainly provide you with more evidence that associates raptor persecution with grouse malls so I think the sort of thing that I've been talking about we can we can provide that in writing for you we can itemise that in terms of health because there appears to be a lack of firm evidence on a positive or negative effect from legislation we've had in the past few years since the last substantive report was done I think in 2012 so we don't actually know where things are improving or getting worse as a result of the legislation that's been put in place since then so the increased penalties and so on so it's not clear that the recommendations of Warrity that things are getting worse and that's why we should have licensed scheme it but it's not clear that that's actually the situation. Yeah well we can provide you with the evidence as miss Hamilton asked for that said that why we believe that raptor persecution has in the past been strongly associated with driven grass malls we can certainly do that. And whether it's increased or decreased since 2012. I'm not sure of the significance of 2012. 2012 12 years ago sorry big apart 2012 2017. Right well so I mean since the publication of the Warrity report undoubtedly raptor persecution has improved and we the government welcomes the any reduction in the incidence of crime but it hasn't gone away. Police Scotland are still recording raptor crime events and I think 10 in the last couple of years since the Warrity report was published but in terms of the sort of the statistical link and the sort of proven link in other words the link with with criminal convictions and grass mall management we can certainly provide that okay. Rhoda Grant. And just really a point of clarification you said that a third of the golden eagle population were disappearing. Is that around grass malls or a third of the Scottish golden eagle population? It was a third of the tagged golden eagles so the assumption is that the people who were doing this were not discriminating in favour of only shooting or killing tag birds so in fact the assumption would be that they tend to not take action against a tag bird if they were able to. So I think we can sort of extrapolate from that if it's a third of tagged birds it's probably a third of all birds and these were golden eagles across the whole of Scotland but where they were found the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to an association with driven grass malls where they where they disappeared or where they were found. Okay you don't have a map showing those disappearances. We do. I don't have it in front of me but we can certainly provide you with that. I'm trying to understand the license is a terribly important matter here and to whom can the license speak. The license goes with the land that take over an area of land so to whom is the license granted because many large estates in Scotland are owned by corporate organisations registered abroad not subject to Scottish jurisdiction. I'm asking Mr Monroe if he'll explain that to me so how do you ensure there's a breach of the license there is somebody to take to court and named person to take to court. Not vicariously. So the applicant for a license may be the owner of the land or it could be somebody acting on their behalf so it could be somebody who's a groundskeeper or something along those lines somebody who's acting on behalf of the owner of the land and in terms of the provisions for if there's an offence has been committed in connection with the management of the land there is provision in the bill for a power for the relevant authority to suspend or revoke licenses if satisfied that a relevant offence has been committed and that's by somebody that is in connection with the ownership of the land so it's not the case that somebody who a third party who's unconnected with the land could have committed a relevant offence and then the license gets revoked in those circumstances it's somebody that would need to be connected with the ownership or the management of the land in question. To complicate things a bit more land can be owned by several land owners could be over you know several estates in which case who we're looking at the license to be granted to when you've got multiple owners of the land who have who are not resident in scotland i'm trying to get to you know having people liable who's liable for this i know that person is. The person to whom the license is granted will be set out on the license itself so this will be something that is information that's provided to the licensing authority in the application and then the license itself will set out to whom the license has been granted so that there will be that direct trail and so that there won't be the ambiguity that you've described there. So it'd be a named person on this license? Yeah could i just understand so that yeah. I mean clearly the key sanction here is the suspension of the license so that no grass shooting can take place right so that that is is so i mean if it's some shadowy company in the Cayman Islands or something yes in a way it doesn't matter because the business the grass shooting business will have to stop the license will say draw all or evocation of the license means no more grass shooting on that and anyone who shoots grass on that land then would be committing an offence but to revoke the license how do you do that do you not need a named party to revoke it because the suspension could be temporary? Well to whomever the license has been granted it will be revoked so i mean it doesn't really matter where they live or whether it's a company in the mountains they will need to be someone who the license holder for that piece of land they would need to be associated with the management or the ownership of that land but you know in a way if it was hard to get hold of them you would still be able to revoke the license right so it doesn't matter about service on them or anything like that if you can't do it but that'll be an issue revocation of the license the as long as there is the ability to provide the reasons for the revocation to the person in question and there will be an address that's provided as part of the application so there will be a way to to to communicate that the revocation has taken place to the person to whom the license has been granted so it wouldn't go down the formal route of service but information about the revocation would still need to be provided. So i shouldn't have any concerns disputing simple language i shouldn't have any concerns if it's states with say two or three companies that are registered abroad you can revoke that license there's not going to be problems about intonation or anything like that you could put it in a newspaper or on the internet or something but you can revoke it you don't have to actually serve anything if they've been able to apply for it and provide the information necessary to apply for it that means that we'll be able to revoke it that's fine i just wanted to clarify that because this is an issue which may come up thank you that's right just a point of clarification on something that you said Norman there is no need for the regulator to be satisfied that a crime has been committed to revoke a license there only needs to be a police investigation for that license to be revoked that's what the bills suggest at the moment is that correct or does the regulator need to be satisfied that a crime has been committed so there's varying degrees of which the revocation or suspension could take place a revocation may only take place where the licensing authority is satisfied that a relevant offense has been committed in relation to an investigation it's only possible for a suspension of a license to happen in those circumstances where the licensing authority deems appropriate where the investigation is ongoing but this is is a power so it would be for the licensing authority to determine based on the circumstances and the the degree of the offense and as to whether or not it would be appropriate in those circumstances to suspend the license pending the investigation but a revocation would not be capable whilst the the investigation is ongoing so just a straightforward police investigation someone phones up there's a dead goal to dig along such and such a state the police investigate that would be grounds for the regulator to suspend the license it would be open to the regulator to determine whether or not that is appropriate in the circumstances to suspend the license in those circumstances which is quite concerning if we've got potentially people who wish to cause disruption to to license it particular times of the year. Is there an appellate procedure if it's suspended? Yes there is. What is that? It's an application to the sheriff. So there is a method I think in these circumstances to apply to the sheriff to appeal the suspension? Yes that's correct. I just wondered about that. Claim on the 12th of august when an estate had bookings of that then had to go through a process of appealing to the sheriff that could effectively bring that estate's income to an end for a year? I think that it's important to be clear, as Norman said, that it's a power for the licensed authority to do that. It's not an automatic position and it would be quite clear that it would be dependent on the degree of seriousness of the offence so a particularly egregious sort of offence where it appeared to be something terrible had happened and it would appear to be unacceptable that the business continued while a police investigation rolled on. That is the sort of circumstance but the sort of circumstance where you were talking about I don't think it would occur to the licensing authority to immediately suspend the license. Will there be something within the face of the bill to ensure that because as we know there will almost certainly be vacatious claims of persecution? Does there not need to be some safeguards within the bill to avoid that happening because the damage to an estate could be significant and to the knock-on effect to those who work in the estate and associated businesses? The licensed authority is NatureScot, our public authority. They act reasonably, they're obliged to act reasonably and they will have their own internal appeal process for any immediate concerns and then of course there are the appeal process to the sheriff as Norman has set out. I don't think that we need to have something on the face of the bill that requires the licensed authority to act reasonably in these circumstances. You actually asked a chunk of what I was going to pursue there, but there is quite a bit in this next section. It's the basis for licensed suspension, revocation and procedural safeguards. I'm going to go and touch relevant authorities, I'm going to get it on the record, so it's relevant offences. I'm going to get it on the record that the relevant offences are those set out in part 1 of the Wildlife and Countries Act 1981, Protection of Badgers Act 1992, part 3, Conservation and Natural Haberats Regulations 1994, section 1 of the Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996 and the Huntingwood Dogs Scotland Act 2023. What is the justification for different relevant offences listed in the bill in relation to potential suspension or revocation of the section 16A licenses and in particular those not related to raptor persecution? Why are those included and what evidence is there linking these offences to grossmills? Well, so these offences have been selected and put into here as they are all potentially offences which could be connected with management of the grossmills. So that's not to say they all have been or are regularly, but there are offences here where it is conceivable that they may be committed by someone in order to assist with management of the grossmills. So they generally are around protected species that may predate on grass or grass eggs, I suppose that would be one of the sort of… But why specifically the revocation of a license on grossmills for those particular acts? Do these acts not already have fairly stringent penalties for people who perpetrate these acts in the first place? Why would the revocation of a license be added to that? Well, as I say, it's about providing an effective and meaningful sanction for those sort of people who will take these sort of actions around the sort of promotion of the grass-shooting business and it's ensuring that we can react to that in an effective sort of way. Given the point that the convener just made about vexatious claims and actions by people who have a distinct distrust and dislike of grossmills, does that seem fair that there's an additional scope of sanction to grossmills that doesn't apply to other rural businesses? Well, I'm not sure that the sort of… Quite how the vexatious claims would work in the sort of circumstance. If I had a dead sparrowhawk and I wanted to take it to a grousemure and dump it right in the middle of a grousemure and then walk upon it and find it quite by chance and report that, that would be a vexatious action by someone. So, if somebody did that, that's vexatious. That's somebody deliberately targeting a grousemure. We have all the other sanctions in the previous issue of relevant offences that I spoke about. So, they could… If there was somebody who was targeting a grousemure and it kind of goes back to the previous point about a vexatious claim, if there is a suspension of your business on the 12th of August, that's going to have a real impact. Now, the reason I'm asking this is because these are the questions that are going to be probably the main areas of our debate as we bring this bill forward. So, I go back to the point. Is it fair to add the licensing into these already sanctions that are there and what would be the methods of ensuring that people were not targeted? So, the licensing authority would have to be satisfied that an offence had been committed and committed by someone on the balance of probability that was connected to the management of the grousemure. So, it wouldn't be sufficient to find a mammal that had been illegally killed. You would have to be or a bird. You would have to be satisfied that there was that connection before they could make a decision to suspend a licence. So, you know, they would be discussing that with Police Scotland. And this is based on the model that is currently operated by NatureScot for the suspension of general licences. So, we're taking an established model which we know works. And again, it will be the same reasoning that NatureScot will have to look. So, we'll have to look at the body of evidence on what has been presented to them by Police Scotland and to see if they can kind of make that connection. So, no, it won't just be a simple case if a crime is being committed, that's grounds for a licence to be suspended. We had similar conversations when we went through the whole Huntingwood Dogs Bill. But I think we got to a position there where what we were establishing was that there has to be this good working relationship between NatureScot and the land managers in order to make sure that that type of thing is taken into account as these procedures are going forward. So, the bit that slightly concerns me is the suspension of a, not the revocation of a licence, I've got no qualms of revocation, but the suspension of a licence, that slightly concerns me other than making sure that that good relationship exists between NatureScot and the land managers. Are we doing anything to encourage that? Yeah, and that was one of the recommendations of the Warrity report to foster those relations. So, that's something that is all gone. We work very closely with stakeholders. We have a partnership against wildlife crime and land management groups are represented on that, so that work is all going and that will continue, and we do generally have good relationships with land managers. I'm concerned that it's like a double whammy. So, if you were to shoot a golden eagle on land that wasn't designated as a grousmure, you'd get a different penalty than you would if you were on a grousmure. How does that implication sit with the European Court of Human Rights? I think this comes to the heart of what the licensing scheme is about, is that if you were to shoot a golden eagle on land that wasn't the subject of a 16AA licence, the only sanction against that could be applied would be a criminal sanction, which would require, as I say, the criminal standard of proof of conviction and so on, and all the attendant difficulties I outlined earlier. The issue here on a grousmure is that where that event happens and the police are able to report to the licensed authorities that there definitely has been a crime, the licensing authority are then able to take the view on the balance of probabilities that has been carried out by someone connected with the management of that land and to spend or revoke the licence. So it isn't a double whammy in that way. We're talking about different processes on different sort of pieces of land. Is there a difference between revocation and suspension in practice? Yes, a suspension could just be for a short period of time so it might, NatureScot might find that it would be important to suspend a licence for example just for a couple of months if they had concerns to allow the grousmure to take action and kind of get their house in order. A revocation would be seen as a more permanent thing so we wanted to have a range of sanctions with revocation being the most serious but having the ability to suspend a short, a licence for a short period of time if that was kind of felt to be a more proportionate response rather than a permanent revocation. Okay, thank you. Rachel Hamilton. Thank you. Mr Fristrald, where in the build does it say that there's an upper limit on the time that it takes for the investigation? So we can't put an upper limit on the time it takes for the investigation because that is, you know, out with our control. But what if it takes a year and that individual has had a licence suspended for a year without even evidence of for example a dead bird and has their livelihood taken away? So it wouldn't have been suspended if there wasn't evidence of that criminal activity taking place and that was an active investigation but that will be where NatureScot will absolutely be keeping in contact with the police to ensure that they're not having that suspension if there's a change in the investigation. So can I be clear here? So is an official investigation triggered if, we'll say it's a vexatious claim, even if there isn't evidence of for example a dead bird? There would need to be evidence that a relevant crime had been committed and that had been committed by someone in connection with the Grousemure. So if police were investigating on that basis, if they were just investigating, they'd found a dead badger but there was not that connection. NatureScot wouldn't be able to suspend the licence and then so they would need to be assured by Police Scotland that it was a relevant offence and that it was connected with the management of Grousemures. And just going back to some of the original stuff we talked about, does the government have evidence to suggest that the cause of death is wrapped up persecution is linked to Grousemures? So obviously the aim of this is to ensure that there's robust evidence and there's a causal link to specific aim that you're trying to achieve here, which is within other relevant offences in other bits of legislation that this is specific relevant wildlife crime related to Grousemure management. So it's almost as if this is different for those who are operating Grousemures compared to other regulation. Well, I mean, I think that is comes to the heart of why we've brought in this licensing scheme. But you haven't got evidence, have you got evidence? Can you tell me categorically that there is evidence to suggest cause of death wrapped up persecution within the evidence that you have? And for example, is that peer reviewed? Well, I come back to what I said before. We have evidence of convictions over a period of years. We have evidence which was produced by the Woodfield and Fielding report, and we have other circumstantial evidence over a number of years of dead birds being found on or around Grousemures. Now, that is the evidence that we have that there has been an issue with wrapped up persecution on some Grousemures. So you're saying that this is going to improve that situation? Yes. Because you have evidence to suggest that that wrapped up persecution is linked to Grousemures? Yes. Well, I'll be interested to see that. In the bill, page 10, paragraph 35, it states, suspension and suspend a licence if despite the relevant authority not being satisfied, as mentioned in paragraph B2, there is an official investigation of proceedings. Can you just set out exactly what an official investigation or proceeding is, because it would read like if we phoned the police and the police were to investigate? What does that actually mean? Because I would suggest that the relevant authorities don't need to be satisfied to suspend a licence. Well, that is set out in the bill where it defines what an official investigation means in subsection 11. It says, official investigation means investigation by the police of Scotland and so on. For consideration of the question of prosecution, no offences alleged to have been committed. So it would be for the police to inform the licence authority that they were investigating a crime, and it would be, as I said earlier, for the licence authority to decide whether or not to suspend in the light of how seriously or how serious they considered those offences to be. So it wouldn't be a routine thing where the police were investigating that NatureScot would immediately suspend the licence, but I think that there would be circumstances where it might appear to be entirely unacceptable for a business to carry on if particularly egregious offences had apparently been committed on that land. So those are the sort of circumstances, and I come back to this point about what we would expect them as a public authority to behave reasonably in those circumstances. I suppose that again is the word of the law. Someone taking a video of someone with a shotgun pointing up in the air might be enough to trigger a police investigation, and that would result in a suspension licence even if the relevant authority were not satisfied. No, it could result in a suspension. It would not. It could. It could. Christine Grahame. Just back to, somebody might not call the police. They might call the SSPCA, for example. What's the interaction between the SSPC and the police and the circumstances? Well, I mean, the SSPCA don't have the power to investigate those sort of crimes, and people should fund the police in the first instance, and I would expect the SSPCA to advise people to do that all themselves to report them out to the police. Thank you, just to clarify that in the record. I think we need clarity, as a committee, because could and would isn't yes or no. Does it or doesn't it? I think, yes. I think, yes. I don't know, we need to clear it. Well, that's what it means. It could. I think we've got a reasonable doubt over whether that's something we need to do or consider as a stage one report, I think. We're probably not going to get any more, and there's nothing more within the legislation about a could or a would, but that's on record. Thank you. Christine Grahame, would you like to ask you a further question, please? What a debate in could and would. Which one is it, please? Page? Christine, we could come back to that. What's it about, and I can just ask it. Oh, the code of practice. Yes, and I know what it is. Thank you very much. Now, what's the justification for a code of practice when you've got licensing already? A statutory code of practice, thank you, pardon. Code of practice was a recommendation of the the Warrity Review, which the Scottish Government accepted, so it would have set out the best practice that people who are operating these businesses should adhere to, and that'll be something that the licence and authority will be able to take into account when they're making decisions about the granting of the licence. You don't think it's overkill? I shouldn't have used that expression. You don't think it's over the top? No, I think it's important, as Warrity said, to set out. So the Warrity Review looked at a number of issues in relation to gross remanagement, such as the use of medicated grip, and recommended that there should be a code of practice grown up in relation to the use of these products. So we think it's appropriate that we should set out that best practice, and we already have, for example, a code of practice on a Muirburn, and codes of practice exist in other areas of wildlife management or countryside agriculture, so it's not without precedent at all. What's the status of a code of practice in any proceedings and courts? Well, the primary purpose of the code of practice in this particular legislation is that the licensing authority will take account, they will have regard to how much or otherwise an applicant has complied with the code of practice. Yeah, so it's just have regard, it's persuasive, it's rather than determinative? Yeah, I mean, I think that the code of practice will, like most of these codes of practice, have a range of recommendations, the way those things which you absolutely must comply with, which are legal requirements, there are those things which you really should comply with, and there are those other things which it will be good practice to, and may or may not apply to your particular business. So it won't be a question of saying you must do all of these all of the time, some of the things which you must do all of the time, but there will be other things. So if, for example, a business was continually ignoring best practice recommendations, which they could comply with, I think the licensing authority would be entitled to say, you know, we think you should be doing this, and can you explain why you're not? This would be good environmental management. So it's that sort of extent to which the licensing authority will be having regard to the code of practice in taking licensing decisions. And if someone didn't comply regularly and didn't take advice, that that might have a determination on the licence might. It could do. Thank you. I would be interested to know why you made that choice, a little bit more detail, and why you chose to have regard to it as opposed to something stronger like comply with in case of the code of practice. I'd also be interested to hear what kind of evidence a licence holder would need to present in order to show that they have had regard to the code of practice and then also what your thinking is on how compliance with the code of practice will be monitored. So three points there. Well, I think that the first point about requiring absolute compliance does mean then that it would have to be a one size fits all code, because there are clearly businesses of different sizes, different geographical locations and different sort of resources that they dispose on and so on. And so we recognise that it will not, a code will not fit everyone. In terms of what evidence would they have to supply, I think it would be more at the other way around that NatureScot will be saying, well, it's been brought to our attention that you don't or comply in certain key respects. We're not asking people to set out every single thing they've done in order to comply with the code. And I think that comes down to the sort of enforcement point in that NatureScot would, I mean, they're not going to be a police force, they're not going to be out investigating people's businesses and so on, but they will be, they have area staff, they have people who have particular expertise in particular areas, who will report back and report concerns, there will be NGOs, there will be members of the public who will report concerns and so on. So it's by those sort of means that the breaches of the code of practice would come to light, I think. Okay, thanks. Can I just ask, is the code of practice going to be developed alongside this bill and, as you hear, evidence coming forward, or is it going to be not until after the bill's passed that the code of practice will be clear what it is? It is, development of it is already underway and I would hope that there will be a draft of some description to be available to the committee at some stage during the passage of the bill. Thank you very much. Jim Fairlie. Thank you, convener. We're going to move on to rural economy impacts and property rights. Now, clearly there are two sides to this argument as we go through the process as there usually is. The policy memorandum states that the bill is compliant with the European Convention of Human Rights. So how do the Scottish Government come to the conclusion and its business in regulatory impact assessment that will have no impact on those businesses that comply with existing law? How would it seek to reassure rural estates that are raising concerns about the prospect of additional administrative financial burden associated with a licence? I think the first point to make, Mr Fairlie, is that we are very clear that the licensing process will be not bureaucratic, it won't be burdensome and it will be the minimum required to operate the licence. So we are envisaging a system where people can apply for a licence quite easily and the presumption will be that they will get the licence unless there is some reason not to. They won't need to make a case why they should get the licence, so the licence will be I have or I manage a piece of land on which I wish to take grouse and provision of some basic information around where is that land, how do you describe it on a map, who is responsible for it, who would be contact and maybe some basic information around what basically is the nature of your business on that land. That will be it. I don't really go along with the idea that this is going to be a burden and some requirements on businesses. Going back to the convener's previous point though, if we are looking for a code of conduct in order to facilitate a licence, will it be a prerequisite to have the code of conduct in place before the licence is granted? Before this scheme is launched, the code of practice will be available, yes. That code of practice I presume is being worked up with stakeholders? Yes. The code of practice, would non-compliance with the code of practice potentially result in an applicant being refused a licence? Potentially. Again, I don't think that this would be a routine occurrence, but I think that where those persistent failure to comply for no good reason, the licensing authority would be entitled to say, well, we're not going to give you a licence for that. Rachel Hamilton. Just a simple question. Is the bill compliant with the ECHR? Well, yes. As far as we're concerned, as you know, Scottish Government is obliged by law to comply with ECHR and we look at these things very carefully as do the presiding officer of the Parliament. Their staff also look very carefully, but I don't know when you want to add anything to that. The Scottish Government has very carefully considered the ECHR implications of the provisions of the bill and the Scottish Government's position is that it is compliant with the ECHR and consequently is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. Just going back to the discussion that we've been having there about suspension of licensing without any evidence of wrongdoing, is that compatible with the ECHR? The provisions in relation to suspension would not be that there is no evidence of wrongdoing, there would need to be some evidence of there being wrongdoing in order for the licensing authority who will, whether or not it's nature is Scott or whether or not it's the Scottish ministers would need to be compliant with ECHR in their conduct and so they would, taking that into account, would be able to suspend the licence but they would only be doing so, as you mentioned earlier, in circumstance and it would be circumstance dependent and it would depend on the egregiousness of the offence that's ongoing, for example. To put it in layman's terms, can you give examples of what you mean by some evidence of wrongdoing so that it is compliant with protocol 1 of the ECHR? In order for there to be a suspension of a licence, there would need to be firstly evidence of relevant offence having been committed and secondly there would need to be a causal connection between the offence and the licence holder in order to justify going down the route of exercising the power to suspend a licence. It is a power, it's not a mandatory, if there's an investigation, therefore the suspension must occur and it's something that would be a question of degree and it would be for the licensing authority to determine based on the circumstances of each case-by-case basis. Just to go back to what is the difference between suspension and revocation? The position with revocation is that revocation may occur where the licensing authority is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that an offence has been committed, so this would likely be where the investigation has concluded. Suspension, there is also a power to suspend and not revoke where an investigation is ongoing and the definition of official investigation is provided for in the bill. As I think that Huyn and Leah mentioned earlier on, it is a question of degree in that there are options open to the licensing authority in determining what action to take. They may modify a licence to put additional conditions, they may go down the route of suspending a licence depending on what has occurred in the circumstances or if the person who is involved in the ownership or management of the land in question has been convicted of a relevant offence, they may take the last resort route of revoking the licence in those circumstances, but it's a power, it's not a mandatory requirement of the licensing authority to do so in those circumstances. To be compliant with the ECHR protocol, it means that if there is a vexatious complaint, there has to be an immediate investigation and evidence to suggest that there has been wrongdoing. The licensing authority will be a public authority and so will be required to, when going about their conduct, do so in such a way that is compliant with the ECHR. Any investigation that takes place would similarly need to be compliant with the ECHR. This is an area that we could spend an awful lot of time on, so there are issues around civil burden of proof and how that would react, and whether, even if NatureScot decides that a licence shouldn't be revoked, it's suspended, even if a court doesn't. There are some difficulties there, just understand how that will engage with the European Court of Human Rights. I think that we'll probably write for more clarification exactly on that because it's quite clear there's some dubiety in our minds about NatureScot's ability to suspend or in the situation where a police investigation would effectively result in the suspension of a licence, but we'll return to that. I think that the committee will write, rather than explore at the moment, and I think that, certainly in my mind, there's still some difficulty to get my head around. We'll move on from that, if you don't mind at the moment, and we'll move on to our next question from Alasdair Allan. Oh, Alasdair, I think that we've covered it. Karen Adam, bigger pardon. Thank you, convener. I'd like to question around the rationale for regulation, and could you tell us what evidence there was to the extent of what wildlife traps are used in Scotland and any associated impacts on animal welfare and biodiversity? Well, there's a range of traps that are used in Scotland, specifically the traps that are typically used around grassfall management are spring traps to catch stoats and weasels in particular, and also then traps to catch wild birds, which would be larson traps or crocage traps, would be the main sort of traps which would be in use. Those traps have a legitimate purpose and they can be, and most usually are used perfectly legally and perfectly correctly, however they can also sometimes be used to catch protected species, and they can also sometimes catch other non-target species unintentionally. So that's the sort of the risk, and the where to your recommendations were really about reducing that risk so that traps would be operated by those people who were trained to do so, and who were able to, you know, that those traps were able to be identified with a particular person who'd set them so there would be that sort of chain of accountability. So that's really, I think, where we're coming from with the sort of wildlife trapping provisions. Can I ask how the spring traps that you mentioned and also there's live capture bird traps, what was the conclusion that was made that required this additional regulation? Well I think it was the potential for those to be misused really. So the live capture traps have been used in the past to capture raptors. Again there is good evidence that, there is video evidence, there is convictions and so on, and also sometimes spring traps have been abused also to capture raptors. For example the fenn trap was used, it's no longer a lawful trap, but when it was it was used placed on top of a pole, and so that a raptor sort of came down to perch on the pole, the trap would close on the raptor's legs and it would be sort of caught there and die a pretty grisly death there, trapped on top of a pole. So those were the sort of impacts that had been happening. I'm not saying that they were typical but they had been happening and there were convictions for them and so really this was about addressing that. But also I think generally seeking to improve animal welfare outcomes even when these traps are used lawfully to ensure that you know the highest sort of standards apply and that people are operating to those high standards as delivered by training courses and that there is to say that accountability through those traps being identified and registered with the authorities. Thank you. Thank you. I beg your pardon sorry, I had to supplement for Marianne Burgess. Sorry Alison. Just picking up on that point you made about training, so the requirements for trap operators complete training is similar to the approach that government has implemented for the use of snares and some respondents noted in their evidence that more than 3,000 individuals who have undergone the training to operate snares only three have failed. How will this legislation ensure that training programmes are robust and effective at ending bad practice? We or NatureScot will approve the training course and we will look to see that there is sort of high compliance with those training courses. I think if I guess it's not difficult to pass these courses if one pays attention I suppose the key thing is does that person then continue to apply that level of skill and knowledge and practice in their daily work and I guess that's sort of really the sort of key issue and I guess is where the sort of you know the registration part of it comes in but yes I mean it's it's it is important that we ensure that these courses are effective and delivering the right the right standard of training. Thanks. I want to explain one point please around licenses. There does appear to be a distinction between wildlife trap licenses as I understand this and section 16a licenses in that one has an appeal process and the other doesn't if I have that right so I wonder if you could explain the reasons behind that distinction please. Well I think the sort of primary reason is the level of impact of the sanction so you know we are very much aware that suspension or revocation of a 16a license would have a significant impact on a business and that's really the purpose of it and for that reason yes we do think an appeal to the to the sheriff is justified. I think around this sort of area the sort of internal processes in NatureScot are sufficient in the way that most of their licensing regimes operate. I just want to very quickly go back to the licensing I'm just I want to make sure I'm not going to step on any of my colleagues toes. The duration of the license one year and what's the thoughts around that and would it not give more certainty and reduce the workload of NatureScot if it was a multi-year license? Well the one year license I suppose reflects the fact that it is a seasonal activity and it's very similar to most of the licenses that NatureScot operate are for a year occasionally for two years but I think the sort of key issue here really is that I'd say this is not going to be a difficult license to obtain or a difficult license to renew it won't involve a significant process or workload for the applicant and I guess also the fact that it is on a yearly basis does enable the licensing authority to have a clear understanding of what is actually happening across the country over a period of years so that they understand where these sort of activities are going on and how those businesses are operating. Is it in the public interest to have an annual license when there's maybe no evidence that things have changed it also takes away some certainty on investment in Grasmures is it really worth it an annual review or an annual process I know you're saying it's simple but is it really needed? Well I think it was you know that was our judgment that that would be the appropriate level for it but I guess you know with all these things that there are counter arguments and we're always up and hearing those. I'd like to ask how the government is going to respond to concern from land managers that tampering with legally set traps could mean individuals are vulnerable to prosecution and is there current evidence that this is a significant issue in relation to legally set traps? Well I mean that that is the position right now that there are there is the risk that someone could be prosecuted because someone tampering with a trap I'm not aware that's ever happened I know it's a well I'm not aware there's been a prosecution of someone I'm sorry haven't? Yeah no I'm questioning. Yeah so we are aware that there are frequent claims that there is tampering and we hear that regularly from land managers that people do tamper with legally set snares and other traps and we are also advised that there are already offenses that apply to this that those are criminal activities so I'm not really certain how the anything in this legislation is going to alter that basic picture. Okay that was the point that I want to come on to. If there is evidence of somebody illegally tampering with a trap or setting a trap illegally for someone else to catch the fall for, is there a method of prosecuting those individuals who are carrying out that activity? We are certainly advised by the Crown and by the police that those are potentially crimes yes. Okay could we get clarification on what that is and how it could be enacted? I think yes I mean that there's no doubt that it is potentially criminal offence to tamper with a trap there are as always with these things in the same ways it's difficult to identify and prosecute people for raptor persecution it's also difficult to identify and prosecute people for tampering with a trap. Yeah I accept that fully but if we could just get some clarification on what would be the what is the illegal activity and how it would be prosecuted? I think I think malicious mischief has been mentioned as one of the potential offenses is common law offence and also I think criminal damage is another potential offense but again we're probably better getting evidence from the Crown or from the police on that. Yep don't you think you can come back to us that thank you. I just need some clarification as well convener on Mr Dignan's response to Jim Fairlie there on the there's no evidence of trap interference in tampering or sabotage. No sorry I didn't say that but there's no evidence of anyone being prosecuted. Prosecuted yeah okay so you will accept that there is there are individuals who are concerned that there are traps being interfered in sabotage with and has that been reflected in the response call to evidence so far has the bill team picked that up? It's been mentioned it's been mentioned when we have frequent meetings with law-managed gamekeepers in particular I've expressed their concern around this over a number of years and I can perfectly well see the risk my point was that I wasn't aware that anybody had been prosecuted in a circumstance where they said that their trap had been tampered with. Okay so that sort of speaks to the same approach that you're taking to grassmore licensing should there be a bespoke offence in it you know alone for tampering sabotage and interference of traps? Well as I understand it the issue is not the lack of an offence the issue is the lack of you know the difficulty in securing a prosecution in identifying. So are you saying there's a lack of evidence which is exactly the same approach that the grassmore license is taking? No no I'm not saying the lack of evidence I'm saying there's a lack of there's a difficulty in if a trap has been tampered with in saying who did that identifying them beyond resolved out that's the problem. So that's a suggestion that you know there could be a tougher way to deal with this than a malicious mischief and perhaps there is a need for a specific crime to be within this bill to send the message out that tampering with traps is absolutely unacceptable that's something I mean given the response from and the call from views it is a significant concern to gamekeepers that you know traps are being tampered with so it may be something you consider as an amendment at stage 2 that we need a specific offence rather than rely on other pieces of law which you've appeared to suggest that the law is not sufficient to prosecute those you're tampering with. I'm not saying there's a deficiency with the offence I'm saying that there's a problem with gathering sufficient evidence to prosecute. So maybe a change in legislation would address that to the burden of proof or whatever. No, no, no, I'm not I just want clarity. Do you think there'll be any grounds to make a clear offence within this bill which then made it easier to prosecute those who were tampering with traps? I think that's something we can discuss with the police and with the Crown prosecution service whether they feel that it would help them or whether there's a need for a specific offence so that's something we'll continue speaking with our stakeholders about. Yeah, thank you sorry I had no intention to put words in your mouth, I just want some clarity on whether there was maybe an improvement we could have within the bill. Thank you, Arianne Burgess. Thanks, convener. I'd be interested to know what the key issues are. This is on SSPCA powers, I'd be interested to know what the key issues are. The Scottish Government needs to come to a view in order to make a decision about extending SSPCA powers and is the Scottish Government working with Police Scotland to consider this? The answer is yes, we will be announcing a position on that shortly. You'll be aware that there has been a review carried out or this by Susan Davis who led a task force to look at it. I think the issues are pretty well understood that the SSPCA have some additional resources they could bring to bear in tackling wildlife crime however there are concerns that they may not be sufficiently neutral as a charity and there may also be concerns that they may in some way undermine the primacy of Police Scotland as the main law enforcement agency for tackling wildlife crime so those are the key issues. I guess one of the other issues that does come up quite often is the timeliness of gathering evidence and so on in that often SSPCA will find themselves in allocation investigating something under their existing powers and they may have been able to seize evidence but were not able to do so under their current powers so those are the issues that ministers are looking at and I think we would be able to come to a conclusion that very soon and the same way as the snaring provisions we would certainly get any change that ministers want to make to the current position to the committee along the same sort of timescale as those for the snaring provisions excuse me. Could you give any examples of the kinds of cases SSPCA have used for the Assisters Police Scotland with in the past? I don't have specific cases to hand but yes the SSPCA have reported cases to the Crown on numerous occasions and those have led to successful prosecution so I think it goes without saying that under their existing powers they have carried out useful and effective investigations. Rhoda Grant Thank you. I wanted to ask you what are the current limitations on the SSPCA investigating anything where they must actually just stop and what is being in consideration in which we to extend those powers? Rhoda Grant Yeah well I mean that the primarily that they are their powers are to do with animal welfare so they are able to investigate cases where an animal is in distress so for example if there was an animal in a trap and it was suffering that would clearly be within their powers I suppose what wouldn't be within their powers would be if there was a next to that animal suffering in a trap there was a dead animal in another trap so there would be no suffering involved so that wouldn't be within their powers or if there was a trap that was unlawfully set but no animal in its tool that also wouldn't be within their powers to investigate that so it's where there is an animal that is suffering that that's the primary thing about where their powers lie at present. Rhoda Grant Which must seems to the public a bit odd that the you know the example which I'm not seeing really happened but we have one animal that's suffering one animal that's dead beside each other the SSPC can be involved with one but not with the other that's the current position can I ask therefore and I know this is just under consideration it seems that you're going to you've mentioned now men I think you're suggesting amendment at stage two possibly whereas what we have in our briefing is that this would be brought in by affirmative procedure yeah so what process are we looking at here and I please affirmative procedure means evidence and so on but can you advise why the current provisions which are in the bill are there to ensure that we can if we wish to bring forward but but not but I think if we are going to make a change you know say it's not not been decided yet ministers will take take the final view on that but I think that will be fairly imminent then we will bring forward specific provisions if we do decide do something further with SSPC powers there will be provisions that will be explicit about that on the face of the bill which is better in my view primary legislation can I ask therefore as I asked before about snaring if it's possible for even a draft of the amendment to be before this committee during our stage one contemplation whether or not that's its final form it gives us steer that anybody else in the committee might take a view indeed the government might change it somebody created a view to actually amend the proposed amendment in one way or the other that is our intention as it was with snaring to do that thank you sorry about that just covering for the convener for a few minutes can I bring in rhoda grant on question 13 on muirburn yes thank you and I just wanted to ask why there are two different types of muirburn license one for peatland and one for other areas yeah well it's not so much that there are two different types of license that they are there is a muirburn license but the muirburn license for burning on peatland will be subject to a higher degree of scrutiny and there are more stringent restrictions on when it will be granted in terms of the depth of the peat and so on and that is because we perceive that there is a greater sort of risk of environmental damage through burning on peatland okay I mean people always ask us about bureaucracy and simplifying things seems to me that a lot of people may need a muirburn license and a muirburn license on peat so they would be needing to apply for two potentially for two licenses to carry out the one exercise is there a way that this could be more simplified to make it more straightforward in practice for people to apply for licenses well a muirburn license will apply to a piece of land so the land manager will say I want to burn on this piece of land or maybe I want to burn on all of these pieces of land across an estate and the license authority will need to be assessing whether or not any of that land is peatland the applicable will be asked is any of this land peatland if it is peatland specific requirements will apply to that so I don't think there is any prospect of having of I mean clearly we want to ensure that there is a higher degree of scrutiny and a higher degree of control over burning on peatland because of the grace of environmental risks I don't think it's a matter of having two licenses it will be a matter of having a license which will now burning on peatland if that's what you wanted to do or if you weren't burning on peatland the license wouldn't have those same requirements attaching to it so if it's a mixed license between peatland and non peatland you would need a peatland license yes you would certainly need to meet the requirements of the peatland license for burning on peatland yes okay but you it would be just sorry I'm trying it sounds like I'm not following you but so you would only have one license but within that license you would have a license you would be allowed to burn on peatland or do you I'm trying to really get to whether you need two different licenses you won't need two licenses for any one piece of land so I mean you would need if the light it's a land you wish to burn on was was falls in the definition of peatland the license would be a license for burning on peat and if it was mixed well if you if you had uh I'm not sure it would depend on the purpose so there are more purposes for which you're burn you're permitted to do your burn on non peatland so if you were for example um wanting to undertake your burn on for um preventing wildfires then you might only need to apply for one license because that's a purpose that is shared between um your burning on your burn so it would depend upon the land you're burning on and and the purpose but we would be looking to work with stakeholders to as we have with all of our other licensing schemes to develop the license and it may be that one license application would be able to be designed in a way that could capture um different purposes or that's something we would seek to work with stakeholders and get their feedback into um how the license application should look in the level of um information and whether it would be better to have as you said one license it could capture multiple purposes on different types of land or whether stakeholders actually would prefer to be able to have distinct licenses so that's something that will work with stakeholders to develop in more detail and that would be useful because I'm just thinking crofter on a small crop part of it with peatland part you know having to kind of get involved in all of this bureaucracy having to identify which land is peatland measured in the beat depth and all of that that just seems to me really complicated and I suppose then leads to the concern that people apply for licenses or not especially for small areas of rent I mean I think you know the key point is is that different consideration will be applied to peatland uh you know apart from as as Leah says where the purpose is prevention of wildfire but I mean we we are aware that there is a significantly higher environmental risk potentially through burning on peat and so we do need to have different considerations on that and whether we can combine that in a single license or whether there would need to be one license for the peat bit and one for the non-peat bit I think is a matter of working that out as Leah says with stakeholders and the licensing authority okay so this will come in secondary legislation will it be affirmative I'm not sure it's affirmative in it no so the development and licensing scheme so that will be developed obviously nature scot will start working on that now but as we've did with the hunting with dogs once the we've got the kind of final shape of the legislation then they will sit down with stakeholders and then they will begin the process of designing the application forms and the the guidance that goes along with the application form so they'll start those discussions now but obviously it'll have to be after the legislation is enacted before the final shape of the license can be determined because that'll be determined by what's finally in the legislation but that's part of their sort of inbuilt process that they when the new licensing scheme is developed they will sit down with stakeholders and they'll be involved in the design process of it but will that come back to the parliament as secondary legislation no because everything that is in the license and all the requirements the licensing scheme will be set out as they are at the moment on on the face of the bill and then the the detail of it you know what the boxes are what the the information that they're asking for all of that is what's then taken forward so there's not a need to have legislation for that that's as with other licensing schemes that's done after the event in conjunction with stakeholders on thank you there's others have said that there are different purposes for which licenses can be granted according to whether it's peatland or non-peatland i notice amongst the reasons that can be offered for burning or non-peatland is to manage the environment but that's not one of the reasons for for applying to burn on peatland when you can offer to enhance the environment but not to manage it i may be reading it wrong i wonder if you could explain that that point about the reasons that people can offer and also if you maybe say a bit about what it is that you're trying to prevent as an outcome by people burning on peatland i know there've been examples in in england in the past of wildfires where it is alleged that peat has burned on a hillside although it's difficult maybe to point to examples of that in scotland i'm not sure um but can you say a bit more that's the other half of my question is what is it that you're trying to prevent by people burning on peatland okay but in terms of the purposes the purposes under 10 to b are a subset of the purposes under 10 to a so there are clearly a wider range of purposes so for example restoring the natural environment which is available as a purpose under where the license applies to peatland would be a subset of the the ones under 10 to a three which has restoring as part of it but not obviously conserving enhancing and managing are not those which apply to peatland so it's a narrower set so basically where it's peatland we have envisaged that there may be circumstances where a landowner was of the view that in order to restore or repair the land that mule bone was was the right way to go and if that was agreed with nature scot that's what this particular provision is about but it doesn't allow uh burning on peatland isn't permitted for the wider range of purposes which are set out in 10 to a so that's really what i'll have my question is why that and why well i think you know i mean i think the first thing to say is that this is clearly an area where there's a lot of contested science and we're not really settling on a particular view over whether or not uh burning on peatland is necessarily damaging what we are saying is there is a risk of serious carbon emission through uh burning which damages the peat so there's a risk of uh peat degrading and emitting there's also a risk of the peat itself catching fire which will again would cause catastrophic carbon emissions and also could be a serious long-term issue to deal with so those are the sort of risks which we're seeking to mitigate here but again i would just say it's not settled science we appreciate that and for that reason the provisions in this section around muirburn are subject to order making powers allow us to sort of adjust the purposes for which muirburn may be carried out and also to adjust the definition of what is peatland and what is not thank you anything i thought there was a supplementary note um we may move on to arianne burgess thanks convener some stakeholders have so this is around wildfire some stakeholders have raised concerns that the purpose of making muirburn to manage wildfire risk on peatland will become a loophole how will a need for muirburn to manage wildfire risk on peatlands be assessed well again you know well said the first to say that you know in the first point is that wildfire clearly is a serious risk we're seeing that nail with fires at the moment in the north of scolund and we envisage that that will clearly only get more difficult with ongoing climate change so we're absolutely certain that that needs to be in there in terms of whether or not it's a loophole and again this will be for the licensing authority to determine um i think the licensing authority will be trying to follow the latest science they will need to be ofei with actually what's happening on the ground and they will also i think be need to be taking advice from scottish fire and rescue service and i think you know the scottish government will clearly be very influenced in in their advice on this too but it will be a matter of essentially the end of the day for the licensing authority to decide where um wildfire management or wildfire risk is is best managed by mule burn and the extent of that mule burn which is necessary to manage that wildfire risk if that is put forward as the primary purpose for burning sam who knows more about this may want to add anything on this yeah but i think the key thing is what you said about the the work with scottish fire and rescue service so um i know that nature scott as alongside the the guidance to also be um working with stakeholders on the code of practice um so working with the stakeholders will be a key part of it okay thanks and just to follow up the mule burn so on the mule burn season the mule burn season outline in the bill runs until the 15th of april this overlaps with the start of the breeding season for many moreland bird species such as curly whose nests could be threatened by mule burn has the government given consideration to bringing forward the end date of mule burn of the mule burn season such as to the 15th of march protect threatened species well again i think this is something which can be amended uh in the future and if certainly we would not want to see um curly nesting being in any way threatened by mule burn and if there is evidence that that is indeed the case i think we'll be happy to look at that as indeed i'm sure nature scott would again sam do you any further on that i guess just to point out that there is also an automaking power so that that could be amended uh without needing primary legislation okay thanks very much Beatrice Wishot thanks convener it's about the mule burn code some stakeholders have questioned why licensees must have regard to the code rather than comply with the code so why have you chosen this wording and how will it be determined that a person has had regard to the mule burn code well again i think it comes back to the same sort of considerations when we're talking about the graceful management code is that the the code will contain a mixture of requirements some of which will be compulsory law that's the law that you must do x or y some which will be um highly recommended in terms of for example record keeping and and so on and some which may only apply in certain circumstances in certain parts of the country depending on the underlying topography or in terms of all the size of the of the burns or or or any other consideration nature scott do you have the power to put conditions on the license so they could for example make it a condition that the person must comply with section one of the code if that was deemed appropriate thank you christine gleam back to i think a question that we've raised before this concerns of the ability to suspend your burn licenses where there's in quotes an official investigation or proceedings in relation to an offence under this part could you give clarity perhaps of what is an official investigation and what are proceedings my colleague just drawing my attention to the definition which is in 13 7 30 well i should have known that there we are wrap over the knuckles 13 7 what's the definition an official investigation means an investigation about the police services scotton or any other body that has one of its functions reporting but consideration of the question of prosecution offenses alleged to have been committed can't can't be just triggered by a complaint it has to be that would not be proceedings it has to be an investigation by has to be an official police investigation where people are advised that this is happening thank you what about the official investigation sorry that's i'm getting muddled muddling myself now don't muddle you up um official investigation must be the police or any other body that has one of its functions reporting so proceedings what are proceedings then or proceedings proceedings are criminal proceedings so their actual life somebody's been served at the charge yes that's correct that that's me was a variety of views among stakeholders amongst this figure of 40 centimeters depth of pete and and again why that figure had been chosen so can you tell us why that figure had been chosen please well again it's one of the um there's sort of much debated issues in this area um there is a present there's 50 centimeters is in the uh code practice um there are people arguing that it should be 30 uh in south of the border 40 is applied uh in protected areas uh so we really were sort of balance out some of these arguments and to take what we thought was uh a precautionary approach here so i mean i think that has been the underlying principle in all of our uh work on on Mioban and the provisions that you see now in the bill is is recognising that this is an area of significant concern potentially there are you know big issues at stake in terms of carbon emissions but there are also big issues at stake in terms of effective management for grazing and and other sort of agricultural purposes uh and so we've sought to sort of try to balance that uh taking where possible the precautionary approach so that you know we are minimising the potential risk to the environment um certainly while this ongoing scientific debate goes on on around the effects of Mioban around the effects of Mioban on carbon emission and on damaged pete and so on so these are ongoing debates and and we want to be able to react accordingly in the future but in the meantime we think that 40 centimetres represents a practical pragmatic approach to setting a depth for for pete where we'll our controls will apply on that point you make there about precautionary principle appreciate you need to restore pete land that i don't dispute that um but again i come back to this point i was asking about before is is the scenario that we are envisaging here when we're talking about carbon emissions the carbon from vegetation or is this posited on the idea that peatland burns on the hill well it's both i mean what we absolutely i mean clearly there will be some carbon emissions from from the burning of vegetation that the key risk though is to prevent carbon emissions from exposing or burning the peat is there evidence so that there have been wildfires in scotland where peat has burned on the hill i believe so yes right but my other question was um and it was others have raised this really but how do you measure an area which might have wildly varying topography and i go to grant to ask this really herself but how does somebody go about measuring a few acres of land where there might be wildly varying depths of peat yes i i recognize that i mean i know that that can indeed be the case and that will be for nature scot to promulgate a methodology it'll be something which they are developing and will develop further it's something which is there is already a methodology which is used south of the border and protected areas but i think it we will again we will seek to make it simple and not a complicated matrix or or formula that anyone has to follow but it will probably involve assessing depths with a pole in a number of spots over a given area and then determining what that means the average depth will be again i don't know if you want to add anything so yeah just um as well as being yourself with the border um it's also used in a number of other activities so for the peatland coast there's currently sort of guidance out there in terms of how you can measure the depth of peat in across the land it's also used for wind turbine developments and there's there's also another one which is escaping my mind at the moment but there's there's already methodologies and guidance out there for conducting the surveys thank you just on that will there be a area of peat over 40 centimetres that needs to be achieved before a license is required so is it half an acre is it three acres or whatever and is there not a risk unless these areas are looked at in detail that someone could inadvertently not apply for the right license because the peat in some areas of their estate is is 40 centimetres there is a requirement for a proportionate approach here and nature scott will take that sort of approach that a piece of ground which has a pocket or two which are over 40 centimetres would clearly it would not be sensible to include those within the definition definition of peatland so uh you know as in the response Mr Allen there will be a methodology for assessing land and the the amount of area of land over a particular depth will clearly be one of those key considerations the problem is a proportionate will have a completely different meaning to someone from a RSPB for example to someone who's managing a grousmure so the legislation does it not need to actually set out that rather than just have proportionate yeah well it won't be RSPB or someone who's managing it who will decide what's proportional be nature scott will decide what is the proportionate approach okay thank you Rachel Hamilton can i just again clarify this point what so what size of area defines peatland in in the government's definition what size of area i think that's what we've just been talking about in terms of what is the i still yeah what's a number on it can you quantify it i'm not sure what you're asking me i mean in in terms of that we have a 40 centimetre figure for thickness or depth so no i mean i know we've said that if that applied across a square meter clearly that's not relevant if it applied across a couple of hectares definitely is relevant so this would be the portion proportionality element that nature scott will come forward with when they develop the methodology for people assessing should your license be a license for burning on peatland or should your license be just for burning on not on peatland so so again to clarify are you are you planning to set a minimum level minimum area yeah area so i think just to come into the methodologies that are currently used i think it's 100 meters by 100 meters is the sort of grid that's used for the surveys for some of the other for the peatland code and there's also forestry was the other area which i forgot about before so the survey methodologies are already sort of already set out already being used it might be that for this there's there's slight differences in the methodology in terms of what nature scott decide is is proportionate and appropriate so it's but at the moment there is a there is a sort of 100 meter sort of grid 100 meter by 100 meter grid that can be placed on the land and then probes are taken within that to assess where the peat is and where the peat isn't it's helpful we can provide more written evidence of the current methodology and how they're applied and how they then are used to determine if an area is peatland or not yeah um i'm obviously um Hugh digman said that you know the depth will be looked at but you know is it in the public interest to arbitrarily define something that's either 50 centimeters or 40 centimeters and what is the difference well as i say it it is by its very nature an arbitrary limit but it is it represents as i say our uh best assessment or where the risks lie and is that based on um you've talked a number of times you you've uh and i quote you you you talked about environmental risk so what is the evidence that you've arbitrarily redefined the depth peatland that would benefit um the environment but also um the scientific basis um of using mureburn burners last tool of last resort as referred to in page 16 um with regard to um there's no other method of vegetation control available i mean what what is the scientific basis of that and would that actually increase the risk of wildfires well we're saying that the prevention of wildfires one of the purposes for which mureburn on peatland will be permitted but what is your scientific basis of that so it was a restricting mureburn on peatland as a recommendation of the climate change committee so that was obviously something that they looked at and they they brought forward recommendations on that so we've taken them into account that the recommendations are one of the recommendations of of the climate change committee and all of the available science and the work that we're doing in terms of peatland restoration to come up with um what we believe is a um a proportionate approach which does allow some burning of peatland in limited circumstances but allows nature scott to be able to you know consider applications and take all factors into account when deciding whether it's or not as appropriate to issue a license and you're not concerned that individuals who are in good faith applying for a license will fall foul of the law if an assessment a correct assessment hasn't been made of whether it's peatland non-peatland one license two license um not being able to probe an area because it's not practical um that and the different depths well as sam said people already have to measure peatland um if they want to do certain development so this is this is not new um so what we are just building on is what exists there is a methodology there is already a requirement for people to be able to determine peatland so this happens already i just add as well um under uh the requirement for mule burn license section nine subsection three it says specifically it's not an offence for a person to make mule burn on peatland if the mule burn license relating to that land specifies that the land is not peatland so if they've applied for a license and the licensing authorities agreed that that land is not peatland if someone later comes along and says well actually it is because of x and y no offence has been committed because they have the license that's allowed them to carry out burning on land which is not peatland assess the application assess the the survey work that's been done by the applicant um so if if what the applicant says that they have done has been done then as you said that that wouldn't be an offence and next scott would agree we think you've done the appropriate level of survey work so um just one one last quick question can i get some clarification on the climate change committee's position on this please um with regards to the evidence that you just gave of of using that as um your scientific basis would you mind thank you you're actually viewing the position in light of some new evidence that suggested that the land that had been mule burned actually was carbon positive compared to other methods of vegetation control so that's certainly something we'll look at further down i'm thank you for that clarification there was some concern that if we got the licenses wrong for peatland or non-peatland mule burn that it's a ultimately it couldn't result in criminal proceeding so that clarification has been very helpful i wonder whether you would consider a diminumus so there was a certain you talked about 100 by 100 that maybe needs to be included in the face of the bill to to make sure that some people are not caught up in the legislation that actually there's no need for them to do that might be something that we'll consider i'm jim fairly yeah i have great deal of sympathy when yes as far as try to get a legislation that's going to work here because you've got livestock considerations you've got grousmure considerations you've got wildlife considerations and you've got environmental considerations and this is going to be difficult um to get the right balance um i'm not going to ask any more questions i'm going to think a bit more before i open my mouth thank you thank you very much that's been a hugely useful evidence session thank you all very much for your contribution and i suspend the meeting for five minute well i suspend the meeting and we move into private