 Can anyone use electronic devices to turn them to silent? Before we move to our first item of substantive business, I would like to formally welcome two new members of the committee, Emma Harper and Elena Whitham, and take the opportunity to thank our former committee members, Jim Fairlie and Karen Adam, and invite Emma and Elena to declare an relevant interest. Thank you, convener. Good morning, everybody. I have no interest to declare. Thank you, Elena. Thank you, convener, and good morning to everybody as well. I'm not sure whether this is one to declare, but I am the nature champion for the hen harrier. I think that that's a boast rather than a declaration. Thank you. Our second item of business this morning is our final evidence session on the agriculture and rural communities Scotland Bill, and I welcome to the meeting Mary Gougeon, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, and our supporting officials, John Kerr, the head of agriculture policy, Ewan Scott, the agriculture and rural communities bill team leader, and Andrew Crawley, our solicitor. I invite the Cabinet Secretary to make an open statement. I'm content just to move to questions, convener. OK, thank you very much. As you know, we've taken evidence over four months, and we had pre-ledged scrutiny prior to that to look at the bill. One of the topics for discussion was the selection of the four objectives. Can I ask you what your reasons are for selecting these four objectives and not including others? First, I'll just say thank you for inviting me to give evidence to the committee. I know that the committee has taken and heard in person quite a lot of evidence in relation to this bill because, quite rightly, it is of great interest to a lot of people, and you can see that from the evidence that you've taken. I would say that, in relation to the objectives that we've set out, the intention with that overall is to have broad objectives. I think not to be too specific because we want to make sure that we've got objectives that will ultimately work in alignment with each other, that don't conflict against each other. I think that, when we're setting out objectives, it is always a fine balance to try and do that. I think that you can potentially put in a lot of objectives, but then the focus becomes on the things that have potentially been missed. So I think that with the overall broad nature of the objectives, we believe that we'll be able to capture the key and the main priorities of what the bill is seeking to achieve within that. That's where it has been really interesting to hear the evidence that the committee has taken in relation to that and the different viewpoints that have been expressed. Those objectives, as we know, are very high-level. As a result of that, people's understanding of what the objectives mean differ quite broadly. I know that we heard from our officials at a previous session that they should be interpreted according to their ordinary meaning. There is some confusion over what that is, but also how that might be defined in the future and help stakeholders to understand what the broad aspirations and the general policy direction is, and how those objectives are going to be measured. Do you think that you will further define what the meaning and outcomes of those objectives are going to look like, and if so, when? I think that that's where I'm obviously keen to get the response from the committee in terms of the evidence that they've heard and any particular recommendations that there could be in relation to that. I've set out why the objectives are set out in the way that they are and the broad definitions of that. I just want to clarify one point, convener. You mentioned the ordinary meaning. I don't know if that's in relation to some of the terms that are used in the bill, rather than the objectives themselves. It was the terms in the objectives, so there was even what the definition of regenerative or sustainable agriculture, for example, how that might be defined, because there could be issues further down the road with internal market bill or whatever, and there could be an argument over what the ordinary description is. That could be cured by being more specific in what the ordinary objectives mean in practice. In particular, using that example that you've highlighted, convener, in relation to sustainable and regenerative, the problem with being any more specific about that on the face of the bill is that that could potentially change in the future. I don't think that we want to be as prescriptive in that. When it comes to sustainable and regenerative, obviously it can mean different things in different contexts, but I absolutely appreciate the need for there to be further clarity around what we mean by those definitions. That's where the code of practice is hugely important in relation to that and setting that out. When it comes to the route map and the information that we published there, we have highlighted a broad definition within that, particularly in relation to regenerative agriculture, and where we've said that that is ultimately a collection of different practices, as well as then outlining what the goals of regenerative agriculture include. What's really important is the code of practice, because that can be more broad in setting out what that basket of measures can look like. Obviously, I appreciate that everybody works on a different land type, has a different type of business, and it means different things in different contexts. We want to make sure that we capture that. Of course, critical to that is making sure that we're involving people in that process, as well. No doubt we'll probably come on to that at some point further in the session, or if you want to cover more of that in detail now, about the code of practice and how we intend to bring that forward. In relation to those terms in particular, that's why that is so important. We'll certainly come on to the code of practice later, but there is a general understanding that this needs to be a framework bill, and it's an enabling bill, and that's what's necessary right at this point. However, there has been some criticism that the bill is less detailed and specific than one might expect from other legislation. It raises concerns that it's successively vague and permissive without currently providing adequate guidance to stakeholders or assurance of scrutiny or control over implementation in the future. Would that be something that you would consider at stage 2 to put a little bit more meat in the bones, if you like, to actually put the parameters within what this legislation's intended to work? Sorry, do you mean in terms of the definitions, or just a little further? I think that we've also got a number of other areas of the bill that are there with the intention of providing more of that certainty and clarity within the overall framework and the flexibility that that's designed to provide as well. We can see that with the rural support plan that's proposed there, too. However, we also can't forget the information that we have already, and what we're aiming for the bill is that it ultimately delivers on what we set out for our vision for agriculture. We also have our route map, which has already referenced there, which sets out exactly what changes can be expected when more information about each of those changes can be expected as well and really trying to provide as much certainty about when more information will be coming, as well as trying to give more of an idea about what potential measures for the future could look like and could include as well. I think that in terms of what we have in the framework bill, yes, there are broad definitions within that, and that is for a reason exactly as I've outlined in my previous response about sustainable and regenerative, because those are things that could well change. That's why we need a flexible framework going forward so that not only can we respond more quickly should a crisis emerge in relation to how we make payments and the type of things that we can fund, but it also enables us to make those changes in relation to any improvements in science and technology and being able to adapt those definitions. That's why having that flexibility is so important. I'm sure that we're going to come on to that flexibility in other sections of the bill, but I'm going to move to a question from Mary Ann Burgess. So on Monday we had a really fantastic session with farmers and crofters and it was really insightful to talk to folks who were actually doing it on the ground, doing their work on the ground. One of the things that came up in the conversation was the whole piece that is kind of like the other end of doing it on the ground, is that they're making something that then gets sold on to businesses that are obviously considering their scope through emissions. I just wondered in your thinking of the objectives, how much consideration you've given to things like, I'm not sure if you're aware of, the Sustainable Markets Initiative that got an agri business task force that globally decided, these are like Fortune 500 companies, have globally decided on five metrics, greenhouse gases is one, water use efficiency of nitrogen and a couple of others. We haven't really talked about that, I realise, and it came up on Monday and I just wonder how much thinking you have around, okay, we're supporting with public money farmers and crofters who are doing that, but then some of them sell into those global markets, do you take that into account in the thinking of the bill to have that flexibility as that part of why you're thinking of the need for a framework bill? Yes, exactly for some of the reasons that I've outlined there, we need the framework because we need it to be more adaptable going forward, not least because as we've set out in the route map, how we see that transition going forward, so there will be changes particularly in the course of the next five years or so, that we need to be able to adapt and have the flexibility to implement that as well. I would have to take a closer look at some of the specific objectives that you've set out in relation to that, but I think that what we already see, I know that the committee will be well aware of that, it's something that I see when I'm out visiting different businesses across the country as well, is that a lot of the activities that they're undertaking at the moment are dictated by the contracts that they're subject to at the moment. I'd had an amazing visit with Arla recently as well hearing about their sustainability journey and how they're really driving that and working with their farmers in relation to improving sustainability. A lot of people that I see and speak to are already far ahead of what we can talk about in the bill here as well and no doubt would meet all the objectives that we've set out here and are undertaking the type of practices that we would want to see in the future. However, we know that, like anything, that can change going forward. There could be new measures that become available that we aren't aware of now that we may then want to incentivise or look to introduce, so the ability to do that and to do that through secondary legislation and have that enabled through here is really important, but I don't know, John, if there was anything else you wanted to add there. To pick up on the specific point about the sustainable markets initiative, yes, we are aware of that, so as we've been doing the policy development work, we take account of market initiatives like that. You mentioned specifically five metrics. There are other market initiatives that articulate things slightly differently, so there's a danger there in being too specific, a line to one, as opposed to having the flexibility, as the cabinet secretary says, to be able to accommodate that in the round so that we can support farmers however they choose to interact with the market because there's a broad range of different outlets for agricultural produce. The answer is yes, we are aware and we take account of the metrics that are being developed, but we keep in mind that, from a Government point of view, we need to keep that sufficiently broad to be able to support that broad range of markets that our farmers and crofters supply to. Just sticking with the metrics piece, something else that came up was just one anecdote from a farmer who has to do a carbon footprint audit for one part of their business and a different one from another part, and then that spawned a whole lot of other people inputting when that person shared that information. I do think that there's something there that I don't know, maybe we need to look at, how do we align that if farmers are having to look this way to meet the needs of one company or one industry and then another way for another, and then there's other things that have come up around the alignment around environmental metrics, biodiversity accounting and that audit somebody said they felt like. If they invited a different company to come and do their biodiversity audit, they'd get a different answer. How do we make sure that we get to a place where there's clarity across the piece as to the measurements and how we're tracking things like that? You have touched on a really important point there, because I think, and this is a discussion we've had quite a number of times, particularly in relation to carbon audits, where I think is there over six day different tools that are available to people to use. It's not possible for us to mandate that or to say which particular tool, I think, as John has outlined as well, when it comes to what others may be expecting, they'll ask or expect producers to use different tools. It's about us having the flexibility so that we can, as John was just outlining, within the future schemes going forward that we can recognise those different schemes, and I think that's where what we've tried to do through the preparing for sustainable farming, it's about enabling businesses to get their own individual baseline of information. Biodiversity is really challenging as well. We've been working with NatureScot in relation to work in that regard and a biodiversity audit and what that might look like, because, obviously, that can be more challenging in certain circumstances too. Just before we move on, you are aware that there were concerns about there only being four objectives and that further objectives could appear in the face of the bill. Is that something you're going to consider looking to add to the list of objectives? We heard that there was concern that there was no reference to small-scale farming and crofting, animal welfare and health, productivity and resilience, land reform, generational renewal. There's a whole range of different priorities in there. Are you minded to look at increasing the number of objectives and potentially bringing forward new objectives at stage 2? I think that that's why the evidence that the committee has undertaken is so important and why we go through this process, because it's only by doing that that we're able to flesh out some more of these points and ideas. I wouldn't want to say I'm coming here with a hard and fast, this is what we're going to bring forward, because I obviously want to hear what the committee's views on that are going forward. I think that I've already set out why we have broad objectives and that, by no means, is meant to exclude all those other areas, which are hugely important, but it's actually with the intention of capturing them all without necessarily listing them. A number of areas are already covered in different pieces of legislation and other strategies that we have, so that doesn't mean that we consider any of those areas not as important, but that they would be captured within the broad definitions. I'm happy to hear the committee's views on that. You would be open to amendments if we would increase the number of objectives. Again, that's where I want the committee's views, because just as I was saying at the start, it's about getting that balance. We don't want to have, I would suggest, a huge list, because then it becomes about, well, if something's not on that list, it's not important, and that's why the objectives have been framed in the way that they are. I wonder if you could say a little bit about how we separate out the important, but distinct objectives around rural policy and agricultural policy, how we ensure that the two are not conflated and how they're related, and how we attach priority to them? Absolutely. I think that that's why it's been important that we've brought forward an agriculture and rural communities bill, and it's very much about, I don't see those objectives being in conflict with each other, but I think that it recognises the role that agriculture is wider supply chain, that whole point about food production and everything else that does the importance that that has for our rural communities as a whole. Of course, we are emerging and we've continued on with the system from the EU and the CAP system, where we've had the direct payments and where we've also had the leader programme as an example of that. I know members, but in their own constituencies, they'll have plenty of examples of where that fund has been hugely important in supporting rural development as well, so I see those as being hugely important objectives that we want to continue driving forward as we develop our plans further. In relation to the leader in the rural development part, that community-led local development has continued to be important for us, and we've really taken over the course of the past few years since leaving the EU, tried to see what learnings we could take from that, so take the best of what the leader programme offered and really try and tailor that in a way that works for our rural and island areas. I'm really just trying to see how we can best make that work for rural communities too, so that's where the powers that we're proposing within the framework will ultimately allow us to develop a scheme that works for our rural areas going forward and really work with them as we do that. I think that might lead me neatly into my next team unless there's anything else that I can do. My next area of question is related to that, which is around what should be on the face of the bill, and I know that that phrase is one that you've probably heard thrown around in committee and elsewhere where we have some very long bills if everything was on the face of every bill. However, we have had some discussion about the rural support plan and whether you're content that there are enough in the bill to define its meaning and its aims. We essentially wanted to bring that forward because I understand that it can be frustrating with a framework bill. This is now the second framework bill that I've brought forward to this committee, and I understand that it doesn't necessarily provide all the clarity and all the detail that people want to see. I think I've outlined already why the flexibility of a framework is so important and why we'd be looking to bring forward that detail as part of the secondary legislation, not least because of all the changes and potential issues that could arise that we need the flexibility to be able to adapt to going forward. However, that's where the rural support plan is really key, and it's about providing more of that certainty within what is a flexible framework. However, the intention with the rural support plan is to build on what we've set out in our vision for agriculture, what we're looking to achieve through that and use the bill to deliver. We have set out the route map in relation to that as well to that future transition and what that's going to look like. It will really be about bringing all of that together in one place and ultimately to provide more of that clarity for people within that flexibility. Just on the back of that, we've heard from many stakeholders that there needs to be a little bit more certainty. Given that this is a framework bill, the rural support plan could actually be the plan, could be the bill, because it will set the direction of travel over five years or ten years or whatever. However, one of the overriding calls was for that rural support plan to come forward sooner rather than later. We had DPLR suggested that it should come forward before stage 3. The majority of stakeholders would suggest that it needs to come forward before we start to develop secondary legislation. I can't find the quote right now, but in an earlier session, we heard that nine-tenths of what will be in the rural support plan has already been developed through the two policies that you have already touched on. If it's nine-tenths developed, why can't we have a commitment to have that rural support plan now rather than sometime in 2025, when this committee will have a limited ability to scrutinise it? First of all, we need the powers that are within the bill before we can formally bring that forward. One thing that I would like to do is understand what you have said out there in relation to the Delegate Powers on Law Reform Committee and its proposal in relation to that. I would like to take more advice on that and see whether there is at least something in relation to a draft outline or what that might look like or when we would be able to bring that forward. I am happy to follow up on that with the committee in relation to the rural support plan and provide more information in that regard as to when we could look for that initial draft. When would you prefer it to come forward? We have already set out that we would need the new powers in the bill to bring that forward and would be intending to introduce that in 2025. You do not need powers to produce a draft rural support plan. As I have just outlined in relation to the Delegate Powers on Law Reform Committee, that is what I want to consider further and take advice on and then follow up with the committee as to when we could potentially look to provide an outline of what that would include. I also think that an important point to remember is that this is something that we will be and when it comes to the detail of the enhanced measures, the future tiers of the framework that we are bringing forward to critical to all of that and absolutely everything that we are doing in the bill, all the secondary legislation that we are bringing forward, is that co-development with farmers and crofters. A just transition is absolutely critical to all of that as well. We want to develop schemes that we know will work and will deliver what the objectives that we have set out in the bill, but we also do that in a way that works for farmers and crofters and really developing that with them. It is by doing that, following what we have set out in the route map about when that information will become more available, that will ultimately, it is that detail that will populate the rural support plan. I would like to think that by the time that comes forward it is not going to be a surprise to anyone when it is here because as we have outlined in the route map we have set out when different parts of information about the future framework will be published and when that information will become available. We have also had concerns from the finance committee that says that the FPA committee has on-going concerns regarding increased use of framework bills and we know that with the convener's committee I have discussed it, but also the co-design process which takes place during and beyond the passage of primary legislation. What is your response to that? In relation to the co-design, I am sorry, I do not know the particular point that was raised there. I mean I know that I think that you and you were at the committee, I do not know if that is something you would want to come into or John in relation to that, but I think that the co-development is absolutely critical. I know that there is criticism of, through the general criticism of a framework piece of legislation, but I would like to think that I have outlined why having that flexibility is so important. We have to ensure that we have this transition over the course of the next few years for all the reasons that I have outlined there. We also need that flexibility to adapt to any future challenges that we might see as well in a way that we cannot at the moment and that is why this is so important. While I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed about a framework bill, in this regard it is exactly what we need to enable us to move forward and have that transition that we have set out, but I do not know whether John or you want to come in with a little bit of information. Just on that, it is the last paragraph of the report from the finance committee that the approach that you are taking presents significant challenges for effective scrutiny of cost estimates associated with legislation. They go on to say that their concerns in this area are set out in their December 22 report and so on for the national care service. We have got two committees within this Parliament that are raising concerns about the lack of detail and that the co-design is going on after primary legislation has been passed. Is that not something that you take seriously? Of course, it is something that we take seriously. We take any recommendations that come from a parliamentary committee seriously as well. We did provide a substantial response to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in relation to the concerns that they had expressed and in the response that we have had to that and in relation to some of the powers that we have set out. I think that a lot of that has since been, I think that there are a few outstanding areas where they have recommended either a different procedure for those powers in particular, but again I think that I have set out quite clearly and clarified why the framework is so important. I do not know what the converse of that argument would be that if we were to put all the detail of secondary legislation on the face of the bill it ties us into that in a way that is a lot harder to change. That has not been suggested. This is the rural support plan, so not the framework bill. It is the rural support plan. We have also heard one of your bill team tell the finance public administration committee that the vision for agriculture combined with our route map is nine-tenths off our plan. I presume that refers to the rural support plan. Some exit elements that we will go into that are in development right now, so whilst you will look at what the finance committee are suggesting DPLR about bringing the plan forward, it would suggest that it is almost there. The stakeholders repeatedly have said that we need to see that sooner rather than later. Why are you waiting to get advice on the recommendations from two other committees before you do what the majority of stakeholders are asking and that is to see the rural support plan. That is not about what is on the face of the framework bill because I think that we all accept that there needs to be flexibility there, but to give this Parliament some confidence that we are not just giving the Scottish Government carte blanche and a cheque book to do whatever they wish, the support plan will actually set out far more detail. It is almost there. Your officials have said that. Why do you not make the commitment to bring that forward before 2025? I have already said that. If I could go back to your previous question, it was not clear to me that that was in reference to the rural support plan, so apologies if we were speaking at cross-purposes there in relation to that information, but John, I do not know if you want to come in particular. I suspect that the comments that you are referring to were ones that I made at the finance committee. The point that I was trying to make, and perhaps I have articulated it too specifically, was that the rural support plan will emerge from what we are currently doing in the co-development of our policy. We have set out our vision, which sets out really clearly the objectives that we want to achieve with agricultural policy in Scotland. The bill is part of that, but it is not the only part of that because we have to develop the detailed support mechanisms with farmers, but they will not work. That will take time. We know that we have to take the time to do that, but we also know that we need underpinning legislation to have the powers to implement that support once we have done that work. In terms of the rural support plan, it is based on the vision and our route map. I think that we have some decisions to take, and they are not mine to take the ministers about the other things that we want to put in the support plan. The evidence that you have taken will inform that as well, and we have been listening to that very carefully. I perhaps misspoke if I said that it was nine-tenths there, because there are options about what exactly we put into that, and the drafting work still needs to take place. If that is an opportunity for me to correct that, I thank you for that chance. I am a member of health committee, cabinet secretary and the national care service bill as a framework bill as well. We had a stushy in the whole process because of what was not on the face of the bill versus what would be developed and co-designed. I am thinking that the SRUC, in its research and development and the science and things that move forward, the technologies are developing really quickly and they welcome a framework bill that will allow adaptation for whatever it is that we are doing, emissions reduction and ruminants or things like that. I am interested in how engagement in the co-design process is being taken forward, because there are a lot of parallels here with the national care service framework bill and this bill. I would be interested in hearing about how the co-design process with the land users, with the farmers and with the crofters has been taken forward to give people confidence and stability in the whole process. I am happy to outline some of that work because, as you can imagine, there are quite a number of strands to this. We have the four-tier framework that we have set out there, so a number of pieces of work are under way at the moment. As I have outlined, as John John has outlined, critical to all of that as the co-development, because we want to make sure that we are bringing forward policies that ultimately do work. I think that one specific example that I can touch on is that we are due to provide an update to the route map in the first quarter of this year, so next month we will be bringing that forward, which will be setting out some more of the detail in relation to the conditions that we were going to introduce for support from 2025. In relation to the whole farm plan, we also talked about conditionality in relation to the suckler beef support scheme as well. Specifically, in relation to those pieces of work that they have involved, work with, quite extensive work with a number of different stakeholders in that regard. As you can imagine with the suckler beef support scheme, the different types of organisations and people that we have involved in that consultation in the work in developing that and bringing forward proposals from individual farmers, obviously QMS, the Scottish Beef Association amongst others as well. The whole farm plan has been really critical to all of that too. I think that in relation to those are some specific bodies of work, but about all of this is how we have that wider engagement and involvement in what we are bringing forward and that wider testing to ensure that our proposals make sense and will work for farmers and crofters on the ground. After we published the most recent update to our route map after the Royal Highland show in June last year, we had issued a call for volunteers to sign up to that and help us with some of that work. I think that from that we have a database of between 12 and 13 hundred people who signed up to take part in some of that research as well. Looking at some of the other figures that we have had, it is involved undertaking surveys. We have taken about three and a half thousand of those, undertaking individual interviews with people as well, about 250 of those, and then there is all the other pieces of work that we are taking forward in relation to tier 4. The complementary support that is available there, quite extensive work, has been undertaken in that regard. That is just a bit of a snapshot. I do not know if John would want to add anything else in relation to that, but I hope that that provides you with a bit more clarity to some of the work that we are doing and just how important that wider involvement is to the process. I think that it is useful to have an update on the work that you are doing with stakeholders in that co-development, so thank you for that. I disagree with Emma Harper. We have heard that, although people want flexibility, they also absolutely want clarity and understand the potential difficulties that there is with the framework bill. I think that the key point here is that the people that we have heard from in evidence are asking for the funding to be allocated and a breakdown of that funding is known ahead of the legislation being passed, and I think that that has been a strong theme throughout the evidence sessions. I am keen to know, as well as what you have just shared with us, what role ARIOB has in shaping the piece that John Kerr talked about with the Vision and the Root Map, which is really just a wish list, how they shape the clarity of that funding that underpins that vision and the Root Map. ARIOB and an advisory board, ultimately it is down to me to take the decisions on how we move forward, but again it is that board with a wide variety of expertise on it that again we are able to discuss some of those and it is that advice and wider testing of even some of the areas that I have talked about here, whether that is in relation to informing how we are best able to take forward work from the whole firm plans, that conditionality, though then we have had separate groups in relation to that to involve wider stakeholders to then help inform that work going forward, but they are an advisory board and I very much appreciate their advice and I am not forgetting that we are where we are in relation to some of the conditions that we are introducing and some of the other policy priorities that we have identified is all comes back to and is based on the work of the farmer-led groups and that work that they had published in 2021 as well and really trying to build on those measures and the reports that they brought forward. There was a John Kerr you mentioned in a previous session when we took evidence initially that the SIUC were doing some economic modelling and that that would be published and I'm sure at the time you said it would be published around about December, is there any movement on that? So the economic modelling that we're doing in support of the work, some of that has informed the papers that accompany the bill that we introduced into the Parliament including the evidence pack, but we do have on-going work with SRUC and others to help inform the policy development of the secretary of legislation which will inform the secretary of legislation and help us to design our future schemes and so that's an iterative process some of that we may choose to publish and others we may choose to take forward in discussion with stakeholders without necessarily publishing it but the principle aim being to develop the policies in the right way and also inform our next steps in terms of the agricultural reform programme itself. I just believe that this group has an important role in scrutinising what we see and we're not seeing this and the Government is choosing to publish or not publish and it doesn't allow us to really do our job, I don't believe. I'm going to be looking at that a little bit more closely and I'll move to a question from Rhoda Knight. I totally get what the cabinet secretary is saying about the bill and the difference between the bill and the plan and the bill has got to be wide but it's actually the rural support plan that can make or break businesses that will show the direction of travel for agriculture going forward so that's why people are really wanting to see a draft of what government thinking is and not maybe to nail it down at this point but that's why we are getting so much representations on this and the bill itself doesn't really provide for much scrutiny of the plan so you know where is the consultation, where is the monitoring and evaluation, where is the parliamentary scrutiny of the plan, I think that would give people a degree of comfort if they knew that the plan was going to be scrutinised and not in the same way as the bill but certainly closely scrutinised so that people could feed in their views if the first iteration is not right then people can go back to the drawing board the real fear is that in 2025 we're going to be faced with a take it or leave it and first of all I would want to absolutely categorically say that that oh well just in terms of overall support I mean what we have set out again heart back to the route map because that's really where we've set out that information and as much information as we can about that future direction because I understand the concerns and the criticisms that you that you'll have heard about a lack of detail and needing to know that future direction for business planning which I know is so vital and is so important to businesses going forward that's where that detail that we've set out there setting out when that information is going to become available is so important and also the list of measures that we published that was really to set out where our thinking is at in terms of well what could become a condition or become part of the enhanced tier in a future framework setting out some examples of how that could work in different business units in different areas now there's a particular focus on that and measures that we produced in relation to livestock because we know that that's where the largest number of emissions come from but that's why we had the focus on that in there so I think that I just raised that point because I don't want us to forget about the information that already exists and what we've already set out because I do think it's important in providing more of that more of that certainty as much as we can and that direction of travel for the future too as well as what that transition is going to look like we don't want anybody facing any cliff edges particularly not in 2025 and that's a commitment we've been really strong on and tried to make clear throughout this whole process it's not within our interests it's not within the interests of farmers and crofters for that to happen we've got to ensure that there is a just transition throughout all of this and that is what we've tried to map out we would genuinely hope that government that would be government's intention but unless we're guaranteed on the face of this bill then that scrutiny will take place the committee will be able to see it so I'm I suppose I'm asking for a commitment today that government will lay a draft that this committee will have time to scrutinise that draft and that government will listen to the feedback that we gain from having spoken to stakeholders about that again we seriously consider all the feedback that we've heard and that is why all the evidence sessions you've undertaken are so important for us as well and of course I look forward to the committee's recommendations in relation to this and the other parts of the bill that will come forward as well so I'm not going to make a commitment on that today because I'm also here to listen and to engage and it's important that we hear that and then we can take it forward at that point as well and once we've considered the committee's point in relation to that and again I did say earlier that I would follow up with the committee I wanted to take a bit more advice as to what we would be able to set out in advance of that and again I'm happy to reaffirm that and I'll follow up with committee in relation to that point too I just really want to press this home because all the communication we're getting from the industry is they don't know what's going to happen and the longer they wait the more fearful they become again I absolutely appreciate that but that is where what we've set out in the route map and you know not focusing on the rural support plan at the moment because a lot of what is in the route map as John has outlined as well will be part of that there is information there and more information will be coming as we've set out along that timeline so the rural support plan isn't going to change what we've got in the route map it's about bringing these different pieces together and showing how we're going to deliver on the vision and deliver against our objectives and I think another important point you raised that I haven't touched on yet is in relation to the monitoring and evaluation against the objectives that we've set out to that is going to be built in to how we move forward because we need to know that we are improving we need to find a way to measure and evaluate that to know that we are delivering on the objectives that we've set out in the bill so that of course will be embedded in the work that we're taking forward to. I would just reinforce the points that Rhoda Grant's been making because what we've been hearing quite loud and strongly is that farmers and crofters are in like a holding pattern they're holding off investing and that and sometimes quite big investment and they knock on consequences of that to the supply chain and through our rural communities so the sooner they've got some clarity and certainty which is what they've been crying out for the sooner the better. Again I absolutely appreciate the point that you're raising and I would also emphasise and also what we have tried to communicate as much as possible and sometimes I do I am concerned that people aren't aware of the information that we've already published in relation to that. There is more information coming all the time as I've said next month we're due to be publishing the update to our route map and providing more information in relation to the conditions that we'd set out last year the whole farm plan suckler beef support scheme as well as some of the others too so more of that clarity and that direction is of course coming and it will be coming in accordance with the timeline that we've published already. It's sticking with section 3 and in particular matters to be considered. I know you've already said that if you start to create a list that those areas are excluded then become highlighted but do you think there should be additions to matters to be considered in section 3? Again I don't know if there are any other particular comments or suggestions that the committee would have in relation to that. I believe what we've said in relation to section 3 and those matters to be considered. Cover what we would need that to do but again I would ask the committee if there are any other particular suggestions or anything they feel is missing from that list that they feel should be considered that's not at the moment. Yeah certainly there's a long list of additional suggestions which you know include Good Food Nation, Croft and More Reform, common grazing, biodiversity strategy, river basin management plans, rural development plan, suckler economy bill, human rights bill. There's a huge range of suggestions we've had from stakeholders so again I presume you'll be open to suggestions on how that section could be amended to ensure that it covers the concerns of stakeholders. I also want to just touch on the importance of monitoring and evaluation of the rural support plan and we have heard that you know there's a potential that we're sitting here in 10 years time asking ourselves did the rural support plan deliver what it set out to do? Did we improve soil health, mitigate climate change, increase resilience, enable rural communities to thrive? Those are all suggestions that Professor Dave Ray mentioned. How do we articulate it and how do we ensure that in the face of the bill we have that monitoring and evaluation to make sure that we're heading in the right direction and not wait to lend them a five-year plan? If I can just come back to your first point, convener, in relation to the list of matters that would be considered, I would just want to highlight and emphasise that all those areas that you've talked about are hugely important and we know that we've got more policies and legislation coming down the line that, of course, are very closely interlinked with agriculture and the future framework that we'll have going forward. I think I would just want to reassure the committee in that regard that all the policies you've outlined and I think we've outlined some of them within the policy memorandum itself, too. We take consideration of, especially when there's legislation already in place, we, of course, have to adhere to that, but this is not something that is being developed in isolation without any consideration to those areas, because, as I've mentioned, so many of them are integral to what we're doing and what we're bringing forward. Sorry, in relation to the second matter that you've raised? Yeah, monitoring and evaluation. So, actually, not waiting until the end of a five-year plan to decide whether soil health was actually improving or we were having a positive impact on climate change or rural communities. Yeah, coming back to the point that I've made to Roderigran, I mean that monitoring and evaluation is going to be absolutely vital going forward because we need to make sure that we're delivering against the outcomes, not least the emissions targets that we have, but, of course, in relation to nature restoration as well. So, we will be undertaking work in relation to that to ultimately see the best way of doing that going forward. Of course, it is really complex because we're dealing with some things that are really difficult to measure. For example, you could undertake measures on your farm across. You may not see the benefit of that or the biodiversity benefit for maybe another 10 or so years down the line. You could also have been taking actions in order to achieve a specific outcome, but through whether that's a weather event or some other incident, maybe you haven't seen the results that you've expected as well. So, it's how we're ultimately able to take all of that into consideration. It will be quite complex, but it's going to be fundamental to what we've got to do going forward and measuring that progress, but I don't know if there's anything else you would want to add in relation to that. So, not specifically in relation to monitoring and evaluation, but I think I would maybe just re-emphasise the point that you made, cabinet secretary, about the rural support plan matters to be considered. We've set that out to be quite a broad set of things that we have to consider, particularly in section 2C where we talk about all the other statutory duties that, of course, we have to take account of, but we're making that very clear on the face of the bill that, in development of policy, we will take account of the other government policies that are in statute at the time, and, indeed, perhaps non-binding policies of the Government. So, in our policy development, we're working very closely with colleagues on the environment directorate in our delivery bodies to make sure that we are able to help farmers and crofters deliver for the wider interests of the Scottish public and what they would expect of those in receipt of support. So, we absolutely are committed to doing that, and that's part of the normal operation of us in the civil service, making sure that we've got that right. Okay, thank you. Just before we move on, sorry to jump back again to section 3 on matters to be considered and Scottish ministers having regard to, there's questions over whether we need that section in there at all and what the purpose of it is. Given that it does see on the reference to ministers having regard to any other statutory duty, presumably they would have to have regard to those issues whether or not they're set out in the bill, so you touched about having a list. So, why is there a section 3 at all when actually the Government have to pay regard to statutory duties, whether they're not actually set out in this bill, and that becomes more important given the list of other considerations that you've said are really important that are not in section 3. So, why have we got a section 3 at all? I think it's important exactly for that so that we can ensure that, and it would be about ensuring that we are looking at those matters and that they feature as a part of the plan. When you look at some of the other matters there that we've set out, obviously we've got objectives, again climate change plan, agriculture, forestry, rural land use, again I think it's, I think, from the evidence that you've taken and I think from some of the discussion that we've had around this today, obviously there are very specific things that people would like to see into that. We have set out already that, of course, we take a lot of this into consideration and we have to, where that's legally binding and where we're working across those other areas of policy, but I think it's important for us to at least set out some of those matters that we would be looking at to include as part of the plan rather than not to include that at all. Yeah, but I presume you have a statutory duty relating to other legislation without having to repeat them in this section. Andy, I don't know if you want to come in on that one. Yes, yes Cabinet Secretary, thank you convener, but you're quite right, of course, convener, to say that statutory duties apply regardless of anything that appears in this bill. So I'd suggest that the way to understand this is, as the Cabinet Secretary says, is around how we shape the plan and what we say about how the plan has been developed and how we might want to put into the plan material relating to how these other statutory duties have been taken account of. So while we don't have to have sub-paragraph C and we could drop it, that might mean that the plan doesn't develop in a way that is helpful for people who will be looking to the plan to understand how supporters are going to develop over that five-year period. So it's as much as anything, it's about clarity and transparency as it is about legal change, legal effect. Would that not be more clearly set out by having a more specific, tailored framework, if you like, for what the rural plan might look like? So rather than having to make assumptions of what's in the ministers must have regard to, actually, if there was a section of the bill which made it clear what was to be included within the rural support plan, would that not achieve that in a far more transparent way? Well, different duties might be engaged in different ways at different times. So again, it's all about flexibility and being able to frame the plan accordingly because circumstances will change, we know that. And new duties will arise as new legislation is enacted. Thank you, that's helpful. Rachel Hamilton. Can I just quickly go back to my original question and notwithstanding the arguments that you make around about the flexibility of a framework bill, what is holding civil servants back from actually bringing forward a draft publication of the allocation of funding within a rural support plan? Is it resource? Is it capacity? Well, in particular relation to the point that you've said about draft allocation of funding, we've, well, just in recent weeks you'll be aware, provided an overall outline of overall what that budget split may look like to try and provide some of that clarity. What holds us back from allocating budgets and budget certainty is that we don't have budget certainty going forward, so it's not possible for me to set out what envelopes might be against that when I don't have that information going forward. Okay, I think there's questions relating to that later on, but have you made, bearing in mind you've just said that the 70 per cent allocation to tier one and two was announced just a week ago. Have you made any consideration about the ring-funt fencing of certain levels of that funding within the 70 per cent for those tiers or providing funding through multi-annual funding agreements? Again, it's not possible for me to sit here and make a commitment on multi-annual funding when I have absolutely no clarity beyond next year what our allocation is going to be from the UK Government, so I think it would be irresponsible of me to make commitments around that when I don't know what that quantum of funding is going to be, which is why we've set out, in relation to the overall broad spectrum of the envelopes, what that might look like across the tiers, but in relation to the detail it's not possible for us to do that. What analysis did you use to come to the conclusion that you wanted to allocate 70 per cent of direct payments in tier one and two if you didn't have full sight or knowledge of future allocations? Again, we set that out more broadly because it's looking at what we currently fund by way of direct payments, the split of that as well as then looking at that across the future tiers of the framework. Now, tiers one and tiers two, as we've set out here, the enhanced tier and that base level support, that will be the direct element of that funding going forward, where we feel like when we introduce the enhanced tier in 2026 that we will then see a huge amount of that, be able to drive the huge amount of that change that we want to see, see more of those measures for reducing emissions, as well as then enhancing nature as well. We also want to make sure that we're giving that clarity and that certainty for our farmers at the moment going forward as to what they then could expect. That's why we've already said that we'd committed to maintaining direct payments now and into the future, maintaining that base level of support because we want to continue to support food production going forward. Of course, with that quantum of funding that we've got, it's being able to use that, essentially, to do more through that enhanced tier. So, for clarity, what is the total funding that you envisage in the 70% of direct payments? You've got £621 million currently from the UK Government. What is the in that tier one and two, you said you wanted clarity, you want future clarity of funding, you've allocated 70% in tier one and two. What is it you base those figures on? Again, that's an overall quantum of funding. That's not the figures. As I've already said, that aligns with what we have in direct payments at the moment, so the direct payments would include that. But I think that when you look at, say, what the NFUS had advocated for, which was 80% of that overall funding, that includes ELFAS, which is not part of that, what would be the pillar one support. So, again, we're giving future consideration as to what that support is going to look like going forward. I don't know if you're pressing me for figures as to, again, I don't know what funding is going to be from 2025. What would you like it to be? Sorry? What would you like the funding to be? What is the figure that you have in mind that you feel that the Scottish Government would like to deliver the vision and the rate map in terms of that envelope? Ideally, certainly more funding than we've got at the moment. I think that the NFUS have called for, I think, a billion pounds worth of funding from the UK Government. I think that that's certainly a call that I would support and ask for as well. Listening to the NFU and their confidence down south recently where they've been asking for 4.5 billion compared to the 2.4 billion they've been given from the UK Government. I think that we are entitled to more support than what we currently receive. I think that when you look at the potential for what we can do for climate and nature, I think that we should receive more of that funding than we currently do at present. That funding has remained static over the course of the past few years, so any increase on that would be very much what we would hope for and very much what we would welcome. On the back of that comment, would you, from the Scottish Government, make a plea to the cabinet for further funding for the top-up beyond what you already allocate? Again, we're confusing two different things. The vast majority of the funding that we receive for this portfolio and that goes into payments and which is ringfans from the UK Government, a UK Government which has given us no certainty as to what any future budget allocation is going to be beyond next year, so we have no idea what's coming. Without having that clarity, it's not possible for me to determine exactly what's going to be there to make commitments about multi-annual funds so that, as yet, I do not have. That is why we set out the overall, as I've explained already, the overall budget with the overall envelopes within that budget and how we can expect that to be allocated. The quantum of that funding is going to very much depend because the lion's share of my budget comes from the UK Government, so it all depends on how much I get from the UK Government. Would you want to ringfans that funding and commit to multi-annual funding agreements? Again, ideally, I think that we would want to commit to multi-annual funding agreements, but that's not in a position I'm in today because I don't have any of that certainty, but we want to make sure that we're providing as much certainty and clarity to the industry going forward as possible. Let's face it, if we were still members of the EU, we would have a seven-year period where we could plan for the future, plan for those schemes, what they would look like, everybody knew what they were going to get over that period, and that was all set out. We are in a very different state of affairs at the moment, so it's not possible for me to say what that's going to look like or make those commitments because I do not have that information and I haven't been given any of that certainty. On the Scottish Government report, it was critical of a number of the previous cap schemes, for example, greening in less favoured areas, the sport scheme being found not to deliver as effectively as possible on the stated objectives. How will the new payment scheme address those issues? Precisely because it gives us the flexibility to adapt those schemes and develop them in a way that we think hard when we deliver against the objectives that we've set out. There have been calls in relation to ELFAS for there to be a rebasing of that. We want to make sure that we continue with support of that type, because it is so important for our farmers and crofters in the most rural parts of Scotland. Again, it's about how we design that. We've got to do that with farmers and crofters and make sure that we develop a support system that is going to work. One of the schemes that has ultimately delivered on its objectives, I'm sure that officials will correct me if I'm wrong, is in relation to the agri-environment climate scheme, which has largely delivered what it's being set out to do. We could potentially look at what some of those measures might look like and that could then form part of what could become enhanced conditionality in the tier 2 measures as well. It's about how we design those schemes going forward, but ultimately making sure that we're designing that with the people that are most impacted by it. Just a quick question in terms of the rural support plan. Do you tend to have any targets on the contained within the rural support plan? Again, we do have a number of targets that are listed elsewhere, particularly in relation to emissions reduction, and we know that that is being considered through the natural environment bill as well. For me, it's not about necessarily, at the moment, introducing new targets in relation to that. I think that what is going to be critical is about lined in previous responses, the monitoring and the evaluation of what that looks like. We already have those statutory targets to meet, so it's how we set out the pathway to achieving that. So, nothing new then? Again, it's not possible for me to set that out at the moment. I can't say any other particular targets that I'll be looking to introduce as part of the rural support plan, but again, we have statutory targets in relation to emissions reduction, and again, the ones that are being looked at through the natural environment bill. So, of course, we will have to have consideration of that going forward. Supplementary room, Rhoda Grant. The committee had a really useful session on Monday with small-scale producers, and what was clear for them was that they didn't get a huge amount of government support, especially those under three hectares. What they also told us was that they were sequestrating carbon, a lot of them were carbon negative, and they were getting nothing for that. While they didn't want carbon trading, they were very keen that the work they were doing was supported, especially looking at local food networks and things like that. What do you intend or what's your thinking around how you support those small operations that are actually putting an awful lot back into their communities and, indeed, helping out with our environmental targets? Absolutely, and the lifeblood of a lot of our Ardrudol in island communities, as well, so I think that support for smaller-scale producers is hugely important. Again, that's where I see benefits coming through this legislation and the schemes that we will be able to design going forward. I think that those under three hectares that you're talking about at the moment have obviously not been included in any of those payment schemes as they exist right now, because the Administration for looking at that for under three hectares, the costs just wouldn't be worth it to them, which is why we try to develop a bespoke scheme to help small producers. We did previously have, I think that it was the small farm grant scheme, funding allocated against that, which was actually very difficult to spend. I think that for small producers, probably having the least resources compared to anybody else, they were expected to jump through all those hoops in order to access support in a way that I think is, well, inherently unfair and ultimately didn't work and locked them out of that. That's why we undertake work with the small producers pilot to really try and work with small producers to see what sort of support would be of best benefit and of most use to them. That's been a really important piece of work and there's some funding that's been allocated to that for a few specific projects to really trial that going forward. I think that there's a project in relation to support for a couple of abattoirs. There's also, I think, a website and online resource for small producers too, but it's been about listening to them about what support is going to be most helpful and how we can really develop and build on that going forward too. I think that this pilot is really important so that we can learn the lessons for that and use that to inform what future schemes are going to look like. Ariann has got a brief supplementary on that. Thanks, convener. I understand, so it's great to hear that there is that small producers pilot, but I understand that that's about a million pounds and yet there's 40,000 small producers and you crofter scale under three hectare market garden type people who really do need support. When you talk about small producers, what kind of size of land are you talking about? I do think that that's something we need to get really clear on because my understanding is that I've talked to people who call themselves small producers, but they're on 70 acres. Yeah, and sorry, I'm using that hectare because the three hectares, because I think that that has what has determined that support previously, but that's the thing. I don't particularly view if you're under that, then you're a small producer. If you're over, then you're a large producer. It's obviously not as simple as that, as you say, but I think it's about ensuring that we are still enabling small producers and businesses to be supported, because we recognise how vital they are. Sorry, John, I don't know if you want to comment if that's a bit more information on that. If I may, convener, I was just going to say that at present, those who are farming or producing food on less than three hectares are eligible for some of the forms of support that we offer. Obviously, an area-based payment is always going to result in a small payment for somebody with a small area of land, and there's an issue for everybody about the efficiency of distributing money on an area basis to very small units, which we would want to be alert to, but I just wanted to be clear that we currently support small producers, though not many access that support, and it's specifically that that we're working through in the small producers pilot to how to best get the types of support that those producers really would benefit from, so networking, training, access to market, those sorts of things, which are not really about an area-based payment, they're about other forms of support, so I just wanted to make the point that the three hectare piece is not the most important thing for this group, actually getting a package of support around small producers, whether they're below or above that threshold is important irrespective of the area-based payment, which there's a danger of becoming the main issue when it's not. To be fair, that wasn't the way you asked the question. I thought some clarity around that was helpful. Okay, thanks. I mean, I just, so we had a crofter on Monday, Joe Hunt, he's an economist, turn grower and veg box producer, and he worked out that support could be extended to the 100 market gardens in Scotland with no actual additional demand on the public purse by redistputing the basic payments, so 68% of basic payments currently go to 10% of farms, and I just wonder if you could outline your current thinking about the kind of whole capping, tapering, front loading that could help to redistribute payments in the future payment framework. I mean, I know, I think, John, when you were here at previous session, when we were looking at the bill with the bill team, you kind of brought to my mind an understanding of this thinking of the money allocation is not a fixed, it's a process because we're part of this just transition and there'll be an evolution that we're going to be going into. Yeah, and I think what's important about all of that is, first of all, the bill ultimately will give us the powers to do any of that. We currently have a cap in place at the moment, and again, the powers to enable us to do that are critical, but I know that there has been and I've had discussions about that as well about the redistributive payments and also recognise that, I think, quite broadly there is support for front loading and what that would look like, but I think that we're not positioned to set out today exactly what that's going to look like or what form that would take because, again, this'll all be part of the consideration going forward and what that could look like in the future framework and having these discussions with the people that would be impacted by that as well to see how we would best progress it. Just on that point of capping out, when would you intend to set that out because that's quite an important part for stakeholders to hear? Absolutely, but as I say, we have a cap in place at the moment. I think it's just over—we don't have any businesses that are in support of the overall cap, which is, I think, just over £500,000. There is a tapering after that, a level of 5%, which I think, and that's businesses that are in receipt of funding over, is it, over £130,000, and we have 85 businesses who are impacted by that, and that's the way things are and where that exists at the moment. Again, what we'd be doing as we transition is setting out more of that information, but that's how things stand at the moment, but we wouldn't be implementing or changing the cap or the taper or introducing the front loading or redistribution without having that discussion with the people that are going to be impacted by it as well before we bring forward proposals in that regard. But any kind of timescale for that, for even having those discussions? Again, it's not possible for me to set that out today. I think what I have been able to outline, I hope, is in relation to the route map where we can expect to see those changes transition, but in relation to that overall conversation, that's something we still need to take forward. I'm really confused here. We know what the status quo is. We've got a piece of legislation in front of us. This is a committee that we're going to have to comment on and ultimately amend. Surely the levels that you foresee being capped in the future is absolutely critical to some of our larger farms but also as we refer to some of our smaller producers. So, when are you going to make it clear exactly what your position is going forward on capping or top slicing or front loading, because we're at the business end of this bill now. We know where we are at the moment, but what we need to know is where we're going to be in two or three years' time. Surely you can give us some indication whether it's your intention to extend the capping powers or retain them at where they are than just now. Just to say that you're right, the status quo exists at the moment until such time as we make those transitions through the route map that we've set out there as well. Again, we don't want any cliff edges and support. We're not intending to surprise anybody with anything that's coming forward at the moment. Again, what's important is that we have the powers that are brought forward through this framework to enable us to consider that going forward. John, I don't know if there's anything else you would want to say in relation to that. In the route map, we've said that we'll bring forward new conditions in 2025, and CAB-6 already said that that will be announced really soon and the areas that we're considering. Then in 2026, a route map says that we'll bring in or enhance or sortier 2. At that point, having done that work, that will give us time to consider the other elements. From my perspective, the plan would be to look at the capping and tapering processes as part of the base project, which is scheduled from my perspective at that time. Of course, plans might change, but, as we've set out at the moment, we would anticipate the status quo being until 2026 or thereafter, depending on how the conversations go once we get into the detail of that. You must understand, as a committee, that we're concerned, and you keep on telling us, but it's fine because we've got the powers to do it. That's what the concern is. So we're going to pass legislation here to give you broad powers, but we actually don't have an indication of what your intention is when it comes to capping. We're going to give you that power, but actually we don't know how that's going to eliminate what the criteria is going to be, how extensive it's going to be. I understand that the committee is concerned about that. I think that that is where we are with an overall framework approach in relation to the powers that we're taking. Ultimately, we need to be able to take those powers, otherwise we'd be automatically ruling out a lot of things that we then just wouldn't be able to do or to discuss or to take forward. Again, I think that it speaks to the changes that we'd be looking to introduce. We have talked about the route map a lot today and setting out some of that information, but I really just want to emphasise, as I hope I've been able to emphasise and illustrate throughout the session that we've had today, just how important that co-development and working with our farmers and crofters is in developing all of this going forward. Again, it's not within our interests, it's not within the wider industry's interests, for there to be any surprises, any cliff edges, we're categorically committed to not doing that or providing that for our farmers and crofters. I think that what I'm setting out today is ultimately we want to design that with them and to see what mechanism is going to work the best. If I could just add two additional points in support of what Cabs already said, I think that any sensible policy in the subject of capping and tapering would want to maintain the flexibility of future ministers to take a different decision based on the facts in front of them at the time, for example, what the overall budget is. The other point that's important from the point of view of scrutiny is that issues like this will be part of the secondary legislation, which will have to come forward to bring the policy into existence legally, and those would be scrutinised by the Parliament when we do that. So there will be a further opportunity for that. Absolutely, and not least because we would have to undertake all the relevant impact assessments in relation to that as well. Firstly, we need to evaluate the system that's been in place to see whether that has been something that has worked. We need to make sure that we've got the evidence base for any decisions going forward on that. Just, and this is the last thing I want to say on this, the DPLR committee has asked for additional information to provide you by the Scottish Government, and it remains concerned about how this power, the capping power, might be used by future administrations whose intentions cannot be known and therefore recommend that the procedure be upgraded to the affirmative procedure. Are you supportive of that? Again, we're considering the recommendations that have come from DPLR. I know that there are a few areas, well, another area as well as that, but of course we consider that as much as we consider this committee's recommendations too. Thank you. Emma Harper. Thanks, convener. I think that it's kind of related to my previous question that I picked up about what should be on the face of the bill or not, and you've already given information about the amount of stakeholders that have fed in. I think that you said that there are 1,300 people that are volunteered to participate in looking at policy development as we go through. For me, it's about how do we make sure that people engage, that they feed in, that they are part of any process because they will benefit from any rural funding. It's not just farmers. As I heard, just on Monday in Parliament, there was farmers, crofters, land users community development people and the word creating thriving communities was part of the discussion. It's going back to the bill because that's what we're talking about today. What do you think about stakeholders that think that there needs to be a more clear direction of travel or key parameters for future support on the face of the bill? Again, I'm going back to, this is about engagement with stakeholders because in looking at the bill and the information in front of me, clear information is about biodiversity, regeneration, sustainable farming, emissions reduction, so I'd be interested in what you'd think about that. In relation to providing some more of that information there, I think it's always challenging in relation to some of that information because I think as we've touched on today, it means that whatever we put on the face of the bill, it just means it's not as flexible, it's not as adaptive and I think we're very much in a space and throughout this period of transition where we need the ability to do that. Coming back to how we started the discussion today talking about sustainable regenerative agriculture, we need the flexibility to look at that because there isn't one hard definition that we'd be able to put on the face of a bill, so we need to be able to bring forward and we think the code of practice is the best way to enable us to do that. That basket of measures that can be used in a way to actually support our producers more so than anything else and really to highlight what we mean. Again I understand the criticisms that there can be but again we have tried to share our thinking as much as possible and this process is slower in its nature because that code development it does take time and it takes more time for us to get it right and I appreciate that that can be frustrating for people given the point that we're with the bill and wanting to know the detail of what future schemes are going to look like but that is why we've tried to articulate that as clearly as possible at least when more information and detail is going to become available but we are committed to working with people because we want to make sure ultimately that we get these policies right and I think in some of the other areas you've talked about in relation to emissions and biodiversity as I've touched on we do have statutory targets in relation to some of that and there could be more coming down the line which of course are going to feature and again why it just shows why we need to be flexible going forward so that these are things we take into consideration. I suppose allowing flexibility and the ability to incorporate whatever science and technology or research delivers in order to support the whole process is part of this allowing flexibility to be built in to like further support plan down the line. Absolutely because I think even if you take some of the measures that we published last year as an example of that now I think at the time that we published the measures which would be just over a year ago I think methane inhibitors were on that list but at that time we didn't have the approval for Bovear which has since had that approval so again that was just to highlight well look we know this technology is coming down the track this could be a measure that you can use as part of that enhanced tier going forward but again it highlights that especially the way that things develop in this space we need to make sure that we can update add measures as more become available and make sure that we're offering that full flexibility ultimately we want to make sure that farmers and crofters have a variety of measures that they can use to suit their own circumstances they know their land they know their business better than anybody else so we want to make sure we've got that flexibility for them in the measures that exist in the future framework. Okay thank you. Alasdair Allan. I appreciate time is where I'm on cabinet secretary so it'll be a brief one but although technical hopefully an important one too there's clearly going to be a lot of secondary legislation on the on the back of this bill and there is obviously a concern to ensure that the balance is right in terms of how that is scrutinised so I wonder if you could say a bit about what your plans are for parliamentary scrutiny around secondary legislation particularly getting the balance right between this particular one in regards negative procedure for secondary legislation? I mean obviously there are the set parliamentary procedures in place in relation to some of that whether that's a form of our negative instruments for the committee's consideration. Again what we've published in the route map is to when we you know just as we've done with some of the other developments that we've announced the whole farm plan the suckler beef scheme and the conditions that are attached to that we've set out when we would be making more information available and the process in reaching that and we've set that out in the route map and some of the information in relation to that that we've published already so this year we've said that we would be setting out more information in relation to what's going to be considered in the enhanced tier of the framework but of course the secondary legislation then wouldn't be coming forward until 2025 itself by the time it's enacted. Oh sorry, I didn't know if you want to come in there. Yes, cabinet secretary. Thank you. Maybe just a point of clarification around scrutiny since obviously a lot of discussion is around whether instruments should be affirmative or negative and this is something that we gave quite close consideration to when drafting the bill and we recognise that because it's a framework bill different sets of regulations will have different import and therefore different levels of scrutiny might be appropriate and will be welcomed by by the Parliament and that's why the main regulation making power in section 13 is what we call an either way power so that where regulations merit a higher degree of scrutiny a debate then they would be affirmative and if they are relatively minor and technical then they would be negative and as is always the case with scrutiny arrangements of that kind the Parliament will of course have a view on whether we're bringing forward the right kind of instrument and that will inform decisions which are made later on about the level of scrutiny which the Parliament expects for the types of regulations we're making so you know we want to get this right and we've tried to frame the bill in such a way that we will be able to get it right. Just to highlight I think in relation to that I know that Andy makes a really important point there we've had either way provisions that we've brought to the committee for previous instruments again I'm not aware that we've had any particular issues in relation to that because yeah we've used those instruments as Andy has outlined negative tends to be where it's been the more the more technical parts so we feel that in relation to some of those provisions from previous legislation that has operated quite well I believe or we certainly haven't had concerns raised about that from committee. I think my supplementary has been answered. Okay thank you Rachel Hamilton Just to get some clarity on what Andrew Cowley said that section sorry part two of the bill includes various sections but the sections the section that he talked about which was section 13 that is about eligibility criteria payment entitlement matters of support conditions enforcement and administration and those are technical things but the fact remains that part two is subject to the negative procedure in total so cabinet secretary are you saying that you would be open to amendments which would separate parts sections of part two which would allow some technical amendments to to be subject to the negative procedure and others to be subject to the affirmative procedure based on the recommendations of this committee I mean again I think that's where we obviously will take any recommendations seriously that this committee makes in that regard but of course we have also had correspondence with the delegate powers and law reform committee about the powers that we're taking the instruments that we're looking to use in relation to that and I think broadly I think we've touched on a couple of areas where they had recommendations that recommended whether that's moving from negative to affirmative or reconsidering one of the other instruments but I think that they were broadly then content with the responses that we've given in relation to those powers there so I think as it stands at the moment in relation to that that's I'm content with where we're at on the basis of what the the delegate powers of law reform committee have expressed to us as well yeah I think it's absolutely worth putting on the record again that when the DPLR were looking at this and the power to provide support the recommendation was in light of the absence of detail and the fact that this is power is a hen of the power the committee recommends that this power should be subject to the affirmative procedure so I think that it's really important to put that on the record that negative procedures may not be adequate to allow this Parliament to scrutinise future legislation which at the moment is yet to be understood or even yet to be developed but I would say particularly in relation to that instrument that you've outlined though I mean that is a specific power for a very specific purpose in that act we obviously responded to the delegate powers and law reform in relation to that and in fact it's similar to another power that was taken I think was it in the environment act at that time I don't know Andy you'll have more information on that and we thought because it was broadly similar to the power in this previous piece of legislation which was also a negative instrument that's why this has been done in the same way because it's not that it's not that broad and it's for a very particular purpose but Andy I don't have a few more information yes cabinet secretary and yes I would be keen to distinguish what I characterise as the main regulation regulation making power in section 13 from from the power to modify the schedule which be viewed as having a much more narrow focus and although it might be characterised as a hand of the eighth power my personal view is that it's only a hand of the eighth power in the most narrow and technical sense we would be modifying payment purposes in the schedule which we need to be able to do in order for the framework to work to be flexible and as the cabinet secretary has said the equivalent power that we have looked to is subject to negative procedure and that's why we thought it was appropriate but of course as with all else we will be considering carefully the recommendations of the DBLRC on that issue but there are two separate powers with different issues from our perspective okay thank you and Kate Forbes thank you very much some of this will have been covered already but it's just picking up on comments that were made by stakeholders about the purposes in schedule one and it's an issue I'm sure that the cabinet secretary is quite sympathetic to about future proofing any legislation and there was a number of very specific comments so I won't go into it in detail but it was generally where there was an element of prescriptiveness which may or may not miss out things that might become relevant later so for example a comment was made around sectors that have been omitted or why certain things have been included so for example people pointed out as to why eggs poultry pork were omitted and we had one specific comment about the need for sufficient flexibility to account for future circumstances for example if climate change or cropping patterns has a result is that something that you're sympathetic to and how do you balance being prescriptive because there will be pressure on you to be prescriptive while also being broad to allow for change yeah I think we're at the opposite end of the spectrum now compared to where we were when we were talking about the broad objectives of the bill because I absolutely appreciate your point and the points that have been raised by stakeholders in relation to that we believe that it is still broad enough that some of the areas you've mentioned wouldn't necessarily be excluded but again as we discussed earlier as you create a list it becomes can then look to oh well if you haven't included this it's seen either of less importance or not able to be supported so I think again happy to consider whatever the committee's recommendations are in relation to that and open to consider in other matters that the committee feels should potentially be in that schedule that aren't at the moment. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks, convener. We've kind of touched on this a little bit already but so new EU regulations require member states to allocate at least 10% of direct payments to complement redistributive income support for sustainability and I'd be interested to understand why you haven't at this point chosen to include a similar requirement in the bill. I think we have to bear in mind that we're not comparing like with like and I think we do have the overall objective we've set that out in our vision for agriculture that we want to broadly align with the EU where it's practicable for us to do that so that's where we generally look at the 10 objectives that they've set out for CAP and in relation to that too. The EU are of course in a different situation because they have their multi-annual frameworks they set that out at the start of a session and then have the however many years to enable them to deliver on that. Again, we are in a different position here and we're coming from a different starting point so again as we've talked about today already it's about ensuring we have that flexibility to do what's right for Scottish circumstances and again having that conversation with our farmers and crofters to see what is the best mechanism and what that might look like. I think I touched on that earlier in one of my previous responses that I think there was there tends to be that broad agreement about what front loading can do and the impact of that so of course that's something maybe we want to consider further but again I just wouldn't want to be in the position of tying ourselves to a certain position on the face of the bill in relation to that because we need to go through that co-development process first. Okay great so this is still staying kind of connected to the cap and we may have already touched in on this but so for new schemes or new versions of schemes under the proposed tier system I'd be interested to understand if you're intending to bring forward entirely new regulations to govern those schemes will the existing cap regulations eventually be repealed when legacy schemes are fully obsolete and is there any specific end date envisage for the cap legacy schemes and also will you set out the expected use of the powers in the rural support plan? Our favourite topic. Okay there's a lot in that so forgive me if I miss anything there and correct me if I'm getting into the wrong in relation to that so is this in relation to the later parts of the bill where we talk about the continuation of the various schemes. Again we've set out in the route map what our transition is going to be so for how long we expect current schemes to stay in place and it's the powers that are there ultimately to enable us to do that. In relation to that when you're touching on a sunset clause there again that's why we want to repeal that sunset clause it felt that it's unusual for an enabling power anyway to have that sunset attached to it and it's just not all that helpful to have there and I think that it's better for us to repeal that and ensure that we can we've got the time through that transition rather than setting a firm date as to which time we we should have used it so again it's about providing that flexibility and to enable the transition that we've set out in the route map there too. Okay but do you have a kind of sense in terms of I don't want a certain date but within a certain number of years or a certain... Again we've set that out up until about I think the route map goes up until about 2027 when we expect some schemes to to get to it now it could come a point where depending where we are in the development of a certain scheme it might make sense to continue that on beyond a specific point that we've mentioned there of course I can't predetermine any decisions that might be taken further down the line or what could come through the process so but I think it's just important that we have the ability to continue those schemes until such time as we we have that transition and ultimately that's what those powers are Okay and just I might not be picking you up right but my question was around the kind of new versions new schemes new versions of schemes and would you be and I guess this touches you on Alan's question about the SSIs it's kind of will you bring forward entirely new regulations to govern those schemes is that your intention and will those powers be set out and how are you going to use those powers be set out in your work around the rural support plan yes that's what the bill would do we'd be bringing forward new schemes so as we've set out there 2026 is when we'd be looking for the enhanced tier of the framework so we would of course that's that's going to be new and different to what we have at the moment again we've set out in the room up there's some schemes that are going to continue on but they could well change within that time aches is one of those as an example we've got LFAS in there as well and some of the other supports will continue on through that period until such time as we transition to the the new parts of the framework but broadly within that we've set out when we expect the new tiers to come into effect as a part of that okay I'll have articulated that well paying attention else you would want to add there just a minor clarification cabinet secretary and you asked about about what happened to legacy schemes to cap schemes and we envisaged that they would be turned off internal repealed so effectively we would be tidying up the statute because we go along so that the future schemes would be drafted as Scottish legislation and hopefully be a lot easier to read and understand than capitals are I think that would be very welcome but I got a clear message I get is to pay strong attention to the route map because that's telling us where we're going yeah and when the information on those transitions can be expected to be received as well but that broadly sets out when we expect the new parts of the framework to come into effect okay thanks very much on on introducing new legislation in the second legislation it's quite clear that the conveners of the committees right across parliament have concerns about framework bills and the additional workload potentially that committees will have to to look at these sis can you tell me what work you've done or or process planning you've got to bring forward these instruments in the secondary legislation we've seen some bad examples where there's been a suite of instruments regarding deer management where we only get to consider one or two in isolation where acts they actually form a far bigger policy so have you planned on how you will bring forward secondary legislation will be grouped will there be suites or packages of sis that deliver on on certain policies or is this committee going to see two years worth of weekly sis which makes it very difficult for us to see the big picture what work have you done on that I hope you'll refer to us as a good example in the future but time will tell in relation to that but I think again just as I was outlining in response to the the previous question this is all about a transition for us and not about everything is suddenly going to change overnight and there'll be the cliff edges in relation to that so of course there will be the ssis that we need to bring forward I'm not least for some of the conditions that we've that will be introducing next year there will then be the secondary legislation that will enable us to bring forward the enhanced tier of the framework which is expected to be in place in 2026 and the ssis will be brought forward in 2025 so as much as I envisage that it will be a phase process because of those timescales that we've set out thank you thank you and they're also phased in a way because we need to be able to undertake the work on the relevant tiers of the the framework for us as well so it's critical for us to get the the phasing of that that right not least for the committee as well but I absolutely appreciate your point thank you um beauty switch up sorry which question are we on now have you moved on to 15 right that's fine I thought we'd missed something earlier sorry so yes my question is around the core of practice and stakeholders have highlighted unknowns around the code so and they want to know things like how prescriptive it will be and what the timeline will be for bringing it in bringing it forward and whether compliance of the code will be enshrined in regulations under section seven so could you say a bit more about the government's intentions when producing the code and using its section seven powers again in relation to the the code I think this isn't I would hope that this will be a helpful document for farmers and crofters and it's very much to be used in terms of a support rather than as a an alternative mechanism if I'm making myself clear on that because I think that as we touched on at the very start of the discussions today sustainable and regenerative agriculture in those terms mean different things to different people it's about a basket of measures so that's what I think the code is really important in helping to outline some of that we want to make sure that we get that right and however that code is used so of course we would be looking to and that's that's in the the measures that are listed there too in relation to the any consultation that needs to take place how we raise awareness of the code as well so we want to make sure that again I've talked a lot today about the code development and getting that right and that's exactly what the code is designed to do it's meant to be a tool and a support to farmers and crofters as opposed to anything else well one of the stakeholders had said that the vision of the code would was that it would be more like a manual to refer to is that how you envisage it again we've got to make people aware of it and if we want to be a world leader when it comes to sustainable and regenerative agriculture and deliver on our vision we've got to explain what that means to people and what that might look like as well and I think for me it's about the measures that we'll be introducing and expecting people to undertake everything we'll have to tie back to that and ensure that we're looking at that as ultimately where we aim to be and it is about being that support for people so a manual in that sense that we can refer people to say this is what we're considering and this is the basket of measures that we would include within that definition is how that's meant to be used thank you yeah and it is just given that the code of practice could potentially and you've not ruled it out play a big part in the compliance cross compliance which would ultimately have an impact on payments and basic payments what's critical do you believe there should be by parliament an overview or the requirement to consult on on the code because it could ultimately be from the basis for cross compliance that's not the intention of the code to be used in that sense as a hope i've outlined how we would intend for that code of practice to be used it's ultimately to be helpful to our farmers and crofters more so than anything else or to be used as a tool for cross compliance roda grant just on that if the overarching aim of the bill if this is part of the overarching aim of the bill and then you're saying this is a tool so it's not prescriptive is what you're saying am i right i'll be how do you get then to the overarching aim of the bill if it's not prescribed again i can't say that it's the code of practice should set out broadly what what constitutes sustainable and regenerative agriculture and then that will give that will have effect given to it by what we put in the conditions for the different tiers so for example the whole farm plan it's something that we intend to use as a base lining tool and then when we have the enhanced tier two then there'll be certain conditions attached to the support that you would get for that and that's how we give effect to the to get the outcomes that you're that you're referring to in our vision okay okay so that means that it is prescriptive and there but it's going to be laid in front of parliament there is no where is the oversight who is going to be involved in the development of it how is it going to be monitored and evaluated and where is the consultation on what it contains because it appears to me that there is no in there is no subordinate legislation governing this at all and it seems to me so important that it should be subject to at least an affirmative procedure sorry i have perhaps not been sufficiently clear the code of practice will be a tool as was just being discussed with miss brishard in terms of the setting out what broadly sustainable and regenerative farming is so it won't be prescriptive but where the prescription comes in is when or not prescription where the the choices for farmers will be made in terms of what support they choose to access will have the conditions attached to it so as we currently have with our agri environment schemes if you want to draw down support for particular things then you have to undertake certain management practices to gain access to that support and so that will be the case for the different tiers of our support in future separate to the code of practice so drawing down any support for for even on tier one and tier two could be subject to complying with the code of practice and therefore it is prescriptive no so you would have somebody drawing down funds under the scheme who didn't comply with the code of practice they would have to comply with the scheme rules which would be the code of practice we are going round in circles the code of practice is really important so the code of practice will set out in general terms what sustainable and regenerative agriculture could be and as the cabinet secretary said that may be different things in different places so it can't be prescriptive for the management practices of any particular form accessing any particular scheme that would have to be part of the conditions of the base the base tier and tier two and tier three and so on so the code of practice sits beside that as a document to help what generally is sustainable and regenerative agriculture and then the scheme rules themselves will determine specifically what each farmer would need to do because i think i just want to touch on that i mean i think it's essentially we're bringing this forward precisely because of the inability it's not possible to put a simple definition of sustainable and regenerative agriculture within the bill itself and i think if you just refer him back to which i think i touched on at the start the definition and example that we've published in the root map alongside regenerative agriculture if we were to look at the overall goals of that and bearing in mind we haven't designed a code of practice yet we can't say definitively what is going to be in that because we want to have to consult on it and we want to ensure that we're getting that right about improving animal welfare increase in climate resilience of production capturing carbon and soils in vegetation where it is more general than i think the prescriptive level that you're talking about cabinet secretary you're not really giving us any reassurance on this this is incredibly important is that one of the objectives of the bill and i think while we all understand why you haven't put a definition on the face of the bill what you're saying actually i think would sway us towards the definition on the face of the bill because what you're saying is the definition in the code of practice is not going to be scrutinised and yet it should and would underpin future development of how people access funding so i suppose i come again how is this going to be consulted on how is it going to be overseen will it be laid in front it's going to be laid in front of parliament but for no reason a such as other than information from walk and figure from the bill so should it be scrutinised by parliament much more thoroughly than again i would just come back to the point that of course it's within our best interest to make sure that what we bring forward is consulted on and is developed in that way and i think in point six of the bill you can see that there that it sets out that point about the consultation in relation to that but coming back to the start it is it's a basket of different measures it's not going to be prescriptive in that sense perhaps we're not articulating that in the the best way in terms of how it be used but it's it's about that support and the general understanding of what those terms mean that is critical in us trying to outline in the in the code of practice. I'm quite happy to bring in again. Looking at it from the other point of view where stakeholders have expressed concerns about why the code of practice is even there at all and what it actually means what how does this place how does the parliament actually scrutinise the direct or indirect benefits and the impact on climate change because it's the government that sets the rules and if farmers are being told to comply to a set of conditions that the government sets and would be non-compliant and and would have an inability to access funding because of that if they didn't comply surely it's the government who all the powers being held by the government even if there's no direct or indirect impact that is being scrutinised to see whether this code of practice is actually working. I think that there would be I mean obviously we have to review the code and the powers are there for that to happen because especially in this area where practices can change and that can develop we've got to make sure that what we've got there can be updated to reflect that in that way and we have that flexibility there to enable us to do that and that's where within that section of powers that's where we have the bit about the about the consultation and ensuring that we can review that and update it as necessary. Cabinet Secretary what if through your powers the Scottish Government get this wrong and farmers are are already we know that they're already doing stuff what if that doesn't fit into what where the government is setting the rules and they therefore then become non-compliant and I completely get where roedigrants coming from because from what the interpretation of this is that it is bescorruptive and that farmers have to do it because if they don't do it they'll become non-compliant but how do they know what they're doing is right because it is the government that's set the rules they need to be confident and have clarity. Absolutely I'm going to bring John in in a moment but one thing I would say is that we have been or at least tried to be clear throughout all of this as you talked about the good practice that is already happening we want to one key component of this going forward is we want to make sure that we are recognising that good practice that is already happening and again it is not intended to be a prescriptive document in this and also in the sense that it's not something that the government in isolation is going to develop and then land on people it's not within our best interest to do that at all it's within our best interest to have those conversations with farmers and crofters to determine what that code will look like and how that might develop and where those powers for that for the review and the consultation are important in that regard but John you want to come in? Yeah I think it's important that we're clear that the code of practice is set out in the bill as a guidance document so it's not prescriptive if as we likely will do have prescriptions in our schemes that sit in the different tiers then those would be taken forward through secondary legislation which will be scrutinised so the Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the rules that are enforced to obtain support under each of the tiers or however we bring forward the the schemes so that scrutiny will be there at the point where it bites as prescription which is not in the code but in the rules associated with drawing down the support payment which is what everybody would expect there to be some compliance regime around receiving public funding but the important point being that the scrutiny of the secondary legislation will be there. The way the code has been promoted is that the code will underpin how the Scottish Government foresee the delivery of sustainable and regenerative agriculture so on that basis stakeholders have suggested that it would have to be ingrained or it will be ingrained the intention is that this code of practice will be ingrained in every piece of secondary legislation so that is really important so the code will inform every piece of secondary legislation which then is prescriptive so there are concerns about something which the Government have said will underpin future direction agriculture to deliver sustainable and regenerative agriculture so it is absolutely critical going forward so I'm just putting that out there but perhaps you could give us an example of what would be in the code of practice and how that would be played out when it came to secondary legislation paying regard to it. I'd be happy to follow up because I know that we have other examples that exist in legislation where we set out guidance or we ask people to refer to that so I'd be happy to follow up with the committee with more information in relation to that but I think it's important that we are clear that there isn't a link there isn't a prescriptive link flowing necessarily from the code of practice into the into the schemes which I think is the impression that perhaps is developing from this conversation which is not right so we were clear that that's what we're hearing from that's what we're hearing from stakeholders so one of the principles about around this whole bill so that's quite that's a useful opportunity for us to correct that that misinterpretation then okay so how would you give us an example of what the use of a code is because it has no powers in itself what is the benefit of having a code of practice on the face of the bill so one of the important elements is one of the important elements in sustainable on regenerative agriculture is how farmers and crofters maintain their soils in good condition and so you can set that out broadly in a code you know you can have cover cropping or you can have permanent pasture that you don't graze for a certain period look these types of measures will protect your soils but we would not that would not be prescriptive as you are an arable farmer any slow then you aren't necessarily going to be using rotational grazing on to protect your soils you might be using cover cropping and so it's those conditions that would apply to the support that you might get in tier two for for the good management of your land which will be different for different farming but surely when you're developing secondary legislation as the government is pulling together the code of practice you would pay close attention to what the code of practice would say and when you when it helps you to find and deliver your secondary legislation so it's absolutely ingrained in secondary legislation again it's about the the referral because I think if we were to look at the enhanced tier and the measures that are proposed as a result of that again what we tried to give examples and show where the thinking was at in relation to that this isn't about us mandating to individual businesses in future frameworks in support that you must do this and you you must do that it's about us providing the flexibility to farmers and crofters to select the measures that are right for their business and the land type and farm business that they operate and that's where the list of measures which in itself the one that we've published isn't definitive by any means but it's about offering that flexibility and that choice to enable people to do that so there wouldn't be that strict prescription in relation to that but a code of practice of course I would envisage that the measures that we're bringing forward would of course be considered within those those broad definitions that we would potentially be setting out but again that's about where the work that we take forward and how we develop that code is going to be really important okay thank you I've got Emma Harper. Just on this and the policy memorandum if I can just quote from it the recommendation recommendations in the code of practice are expected to underpin good agriculture and environment practice on the crucial bit as set out in conditions for area-based support for farmers so you have to comply with the code of practice to get your area-based support and that's the so yes it might not say everyone must do everything to the letter in this code of practice but they will have to follow the code of practice as it pertains to their land in order to access area-based payments and that makes it crucial that people understand what's contained in it that they agree that that's practicable otherwise they won't get their area-based payments and that's big. We would be expecting going forward and as we've already set out we've set out the basic standards that we expect people to comply with in relation to geek in the extra conditions that we've set out in relation to the whole farm plan and really starting to build the foundations and the base lining for individual businesses so we've already set out and there will be more information that's getting published in the update to the route map that's coming on the whole farm plan that will set out what we expect in order for people to access that support as well. What you've said about involving people and they need to know what's in the code of practice that's exactly right and that's why we want to consult on that and to make sure that what we're setting out in that code of practice is right in that regard but it's again I would come back to the points that we've touched on earlier it's not prescriptive in that sense because we've got to enable through the future tiers of our framework ultimately we've set out as our objective we want to be a world leader when it comes to sustainable and regenerative agriculture and set that out in our vision as well but we need to enable that there is a whole host and flexibility of measures that can be be part of that but it's the co-development in that work that is going to be critical to making sure that we get that right too. I don't think anyone disagrees with that I think the issue is who oversees it what scrutiny is available and what changes can be made to make sure that there are no unintended consequences from this and the very light touch in the bill I don't think is sufficient. I mean I would disagree in the sense that I don't think it's particularly light touch in the bill it talks about the reviews that we would have to undertake in relation to the code as well and the consultation too but again if the committee has particular views in relation to this then of course we'll consider that through the stage one consideration as well but because I understand and going through this conversation today we're again happy to take any particular views that the committee might have but I wouldn't want there to be a misinterpretation of the basis of this and what the code of practice would mean. Emma Harper. Thanks convener. I'm a bit breathless about listening to all of this. Looking at the the bill in front of me page 14 part 4 section 26 has paragraphs that talks about the code and how that the what is sustainable and regenerative there's paragraphs that talk about what the Scottish ministers must do to review and if they consider appropriate revise and publish the code and then before publishing it they come to Parliament and then the Scottish ministers must in preparing or reviewing the code consult such such persons as they consider likely to be interested or affected by it. So in reading this and in hearing what Rhoda Grant is saying about the policy memorandum it doesn't seem to me that the bill suggests anything is going to be foisted on farmers that this is about engaging with them because you've talked about co-design you've talked about all these people that have been invited to participate and into into what their part of sustainability and regenerative farming is whether they're we producers or big arable barley growers or whatever. So I'm interested in just hearing about how we make sure that people understand that nothing's going to be foisted on them because this is partnership working which is what co-design is all about. I hope that we've been able to evidence that through the work that we've undertaken so far and ultimately through all the commitments that we've made throughout this whole process about how we develop policy. We want to do this with farmers and crofters because as I've said a number of times in the committee today they know their own business best. We want to provide that flexibility within a future system to enable them to take the choices and undertake the measures that are going to work for their business and that is critical going forward and again you can see some of those measures we've published what some of that might look like as well and it's absolutely built in to everything that we do to everything that we've set out as part of the route map and the information that we're providing because what we are bringing forward ultimately has to be deliverable it has to work for our farmers and crofters and it's within our own best interests to make sure that we continue that work with them to ensure that we get this right and I think the points that you touched on and that I'd highlighted in previous responses to Roda Grant and some of the points that are set out in section 26 there I think enable us to do that ensure that we are having that consultation in that engagement and of course ensure that we are reviewing because again in this space as we as we know and we've discussed already today things can change things can improve and things are developing all the time. I'm just wondering whether the cabinet secretary whether the time frame for the five year review in terms of consultation is is too long and I ask that because obviously farmers are paid on an annual basis or we would hope that you know in the future they would be by the government but if they cannot access funding for non-compliance because they're not meeting your definition of sustainable and regenerative agriculture it's going to take them a very long while to put in place what they do need to meet because we are talking about many different farming contexts here we're not just talking about so one size fits all so I think that could be a consideration from the Scottish Government's point of view that a five year process is just too long again if the committee has any particular views on that I'm happy to look at that and consider it but I think again I would just want to clarify we've already set out what our expectations are going to be for support going forward again the minimum standards that we're expecting what conditions are going to apply to support from 2025 and then what support is going to be introduced in 2026 so I just want to be absolutely clear on that but in terms of the review period yes if there aren't any other potential views there happy to consider that convener I think one of the main concerns that I have and other stakeholders hearing from other stakeholders is that of course the term sustainable and regenerative could be interpreted in different ways by different groups of people whether they were food producers or people who were environmental lobbyists so it is it's a difficult one because you could consider that sustainable also incorporated perhaps a fair work agenda or other areas that weren't related to the environment or animal welfare for example but we it would be useful if we could have an understanding and I don't know from where you come from the policy point of view where in the whole process of this transformation where you are actually going to allow the committee to understand what you mean by sustainable and regenerative because I think then that would take away our fears the fears that Rhoda Grant was talking about and the convener there around the non-compliance I think again that's what I've tried to illustrate by even talking about some of the definitions that we've put out there at the moment I mean you're absolutely right it can mean different things to different people and it's about as I set out the very start it's a collection of different measures and I think I've made the point that you made there too every business is different and we need that flexibility to be able to adapt to that but again this isn't something we're just going to conjure up ourselves and then suddenly bring forward and expect everyone to comply with this is about working with people to ensure that we develop a code of practice that works for everyone it's not within our best interests to be excluding anyone who is say is currently part of the payment system the 18 odd thousand businesses that we have part of our agricultural payment system we don't want to lock people out this is about a journey and taking people along with us on that journey and that is why we've made the commitments that we have in that regard so that I just want to be clear that that's certainly not the intention of it at all I don't know I don't know if it was out but you covered what you said so just to close this session off before moving on did you foresee the code of practice having animal welfare and succession planning and whatever it's all part of the no again that would completely undermine if everything I've said about code development if I was to outline right now what I think would be in a code of practice and again I'm not the expert on what should be in a sustainable regenerative code of practice it's not for me to outline to the committee again what I can point to is the what I've highlighted a number of times today and already read out some elements of that to the committee in relation to what we've published in the route map but again that has to be developed given there's a suggestion it may not come forward until 2026 I think the committee would appreciate an early idea of what you may consider and the early work that you've done and whether the elements like animal welfare, fair pay and work conditions and whether that might play a part that would certainly be helpful to give us an idea of what to expect okay I can certainly point you to work that out I'm happy to follow up with the committee in relation to the certainly work that we've already published in that regard if that would be helpful that's very helpful thank you and finally but not least Elena Whitham thank you very much convener I think I've learned my lesson not to volunteer to go last I will be a very brief cabsec if I can be you did mention just transition for our farmers and our crofters and I think that's something that's really important especially when we're looking at them to redevelop their skills and their practices as we've just been speaking about a big part of that is going to be continuing professional development but we have heard in evidence you know the committee's heard that there needs to be a massive culture shift in terms of how our farmers and crofters actually take up such opportunities and we know that there's also you know we have to have due cognisance to certain sectors within so whether we're thinking about female farmers or we're thinking about new entrants or we're thinking about younger farmers as well so I'm wondering while stakeholders and respondents are broadly supportive of cpd they have raised a number of questions around about how this would be implemented what are the Scottish government's intentions with those powers and I'm thinking about compelling measures versus incentivising measures that maybe would be implemented and when could we expect to see any regulations come forward in that area thanks I thank you very much for that for that question because I think this is a really important part of the framework actually because we don't have powers to implement a cpd regime at the moment so the ability for us to take the powers through the bill is really important in that regard and that's what it was interesting for me going through all the evidence that the committee's heard in relation to this because again I think it's I felt like through some of the evidence it was coming across that this would be interpreted as a stick for people and forcing people to undertake cpd in a sense which is not the way that that is intended at all but of course I think it's important that we have the powers that then provide the flexibility for say if there was some cpd that could be considered to be essential or that somebody must undertake in order to undertake another activity that we have the powers to enable us to do that and I think there are some examples that exist at the moment whether that's in relation to plant protection products where you need to undertake specific training before you can then undertake that activity which is reasonable enough but this is really just about facilitating that that cpd in the first place building a system that enables for that continued learning and that continued personal development to I think that's one thing that also came strongly through the evidence in relation to just the importance of the peer-to-peer learning and the support that's available there so we want to make sure that we're facilitating that as much as we possibly can that we're encouraging that as well as providing other opportunities for learning through that process as well so I hope that's helpful in clarifying how we intend to at least establish and set up those powers and enable that going forward but of course another element alongside that is the knowledge transfer and what would be the agricultural knowledge and innovation service going forward as well and the different opportunities that that presents there is an awful lot of work that's been undertaken so far in relation to that and what will become the future tier 4 support or just as John just said the in relation to that when that's going to be implemented I think that's from 20 20 27 onwards in relation to that new part of the framework so well so we'll try and bring forward the cpd support and the other the other parts of the tier 4 support as quickly as we can because it's a it will hopefully be an evolution of where we currently we are with our farm advisory services and the different networks of farms monitor farms in particular and of course you mentioned the women and agricultural work which we're continuing to maintain and build upon so that's that's all an evolving situation but so the the timeline for that is slightly separate from from the rest because we've got a discrete team working on that and much of that work is delivered with the different delivery partners in terms of the advisory services on the ground so we'll be developing that as soon as we can thank you um beaterswish it would be something about the the budget in terms of cpd how that's going to be how cpd would be supported again it's not possible for me to put a figure on that or set out what that's what that can look like at the moment because i don't know what future budgets are going to be but of course and i think sometimes it can be interpreted that because this is tier 4 it's like it's seen at the the end of a scale rather than it's something that actually supports everything else that happens within the framework which i think is the way that that should be viewed but of course we want to make sure that we're enabling that going forward now we currently fund we have a number of different schemes that we fund at the moment the knowledge transfer and innovation service we have the farm advisory service and we've set out the broad envelope of what we think that the direct element of that support is going to look like but in terms of future budgets it's not possible for me to set that out at the moment but there will be supported there will be some support yes if we're bringing forward this i think it's a critical element we support schemes like that just now and as those schemes evolve and we transition into what will become that that formal tier of the new framework then of course i would fully intend to support that going forward just a question that i know that we're not looking for specific figures but we know that the budget set aside in the financial memorandums about 340 million is it foreseen that the cpd cost of delivering the cpd will come from that budget or will it pull on budgets from other sectors again it's not possible for me to set that out at this stage and what that might look like and also we've undertaken a financial memorandum you must have done work to decide where that money what that was based on so we've got 70% and basic payments we will have tier two tier three whatever so i think it's a simple question do you foresee cpd funding to come out of that 840 million that you expect to to be the budget up until 2028 sorry well yeah within the overall quantum of what we have in the portfolio funding then i would expect us to be funding that cpd okay so the cpd is going to come come yes sorry so that was a question will the cpd funding come out of that pot the 840 million pot that the financial memorandum has identified yes yeah okay i think that was the the crux of the question from butress wish of whether okay sorry if i was misinterpreted in the question there but yeah that's where i would expect that that funding would come from thank you very much cabinet section your officials we appreciate your your time this morning that's been hugely helpful thank you for attending today i will now suspend the meeting for for 10 minutes our third item of business this morning is consideration of a negative ssi the sea fish prohibition on fishing first of Clyde order 2024 given that the committee has received some further information on this instrument i propose that we defer consideration to next week in order to invite the minister to discuss the evidence base further the committee in agreement thank you our fourth item of business is consideration of three UK si consent notifications the sea fisheries amendment regulation 2024 official controls fee and charges amendment regulation 2024 and sea fisheries international commission for the conservation of atlantic tuna amendment regulations 2024 do any members have any comments on either of these notifications no our members content to agree with the Scottish Government's decision to consent to the provision set out in the notification being included in UK rather than Scottish subordinate legislation thank you our next item of business this morning is consideration of the wildlife management and mureburn Scotland bill at stage 2 and invite to the meeting Jim Fairlie minister for agriculture and connectivity and his supporting officials and also welcome to the meeting uh Jamie Halcro Johnston uh Colin Smith and Edward Mountain so i call on amendment 180 in the name of Edward Mountain grouped with amendments 120 13 121 14 15 and 16 Edward Mountain to move amendment 180 and speak to all amendments in the group thank you convener before i do that as our new members of the committee and uh i would like to make a declaration of interest in line with the declaration of interest that uh may that i've made before um just so people are aware i am a member of a family farming partnership and partnership and a joint owner of a wild fisheries both roles require the controlling of some species of wildlife including states weasels minks rats mice foxes and corvids including crows roats and jackdaws i've been controlling and managing wildlife to manage environments for over 40 years i use licence firearms and spring traps and i make clear that i do own i'm sorry i make it clear that i do not own any hillground but i have been involved for more than 40 years in mureburn and burning to manage grassland and farmland and to protect it from invasive species such as gorsamburum in the past i've supervised muleburner and have contributed to muleburn consult consultations and management plans i hope that what i've said is sufficient for the committee to understand that i have a relevant interest in this matter convener i move amendment 180 in my name and i'm just going to talk to the amendments in this group that are relevant to me uh the reason why i've moved these amendments is to ensure that training courses are relevant and that they include consultation with interested parties and land managers when it comes to setting them up one thing that i've found in my in my experience in the countryside is when courses are set up they tend to expand in time so for example a dcs one course could have been two days now extends to four days it concerns me that a whole industry is building up around these courses so i believe that the the courses can be limited in time to make sure that they are short and relevant the other thing that i've found as with courses is that it's becoming increasingly expensive so that you may have maybe up to eight to ten people on a course each being charged five to six hundred pounds for that course which per day works on three thousand pounds for one instructor that to me seems to be extremely high and therefore i seek to limit the cost of the courses to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to do it as far as the other amendments in the group uh convener i don't propose to speak to those yet but listen to the arguments and comment on them at the end uh thank you convener for your time thank you mr mighton uh collin smith to speak to amendment 120 and other amendments in the group thank you very much convener amendment 120 in my name proposes that nature scott should consider including independent animal welfare expertise when determining the content of the trap training courses the sentence of wild animals and birds is recognised across the scientific community but trap design and use has not kept up with animal welfare science with farmed and companion animals or those used in research methods of killing are tightly specified and regulated aiming for a humane death that is as near instantaneous as possible but that's in contrast to legislation at present on trapping and killing wild animals which has fallen behind animal welfare expertise and trap training would be a good first step in helping address this this would not be an onerous provision and could be implemented through for example an independent veteran advisor an independent academic or the scottish animal welfare commission simply being asked to review the animal welfare aspects of course content amendment 121 like a number of my other amendments draws from the internationally recognised ethical principles and wildlife management which i've talked about on a number of occasions in this case it would mean that the training and assessment required to obtain a trap license would include two particular principles these won't prevent the use of traps or even restrictor use it simply requires their use to be justified on the ground specified namely trap users would have to have a legitimate reason to use the traps and first consider whether there are non-lethal alternatives and secondly consider whether there are non-lethal alternatives such evidence community really should be routinely required in the wildlife management decisions thanks thank you other members jimmy halker johnson thank you very much convenient can i draw members attention to my register of interests as a partner in a farming business and through that as a member of a number of organisations including nfu and sle i'm speaking today i'm delighted to speak in support of my colleague steven kerr who can't come along today and he's asked me to cover a number of areas and to move his amendments when we come to those i was just going to speak very briefly to two amendments 120 and 121 in the name of collin smith on stevens behalf we are against these amendments we do not consider this amendment 121 adds anything instructive or novel to what would be expected on such training courses it is unnecessarily prescriptive and similarly in relation to amendment 121 which we do not see a rationale for being so prescriptive course content including animal welfare considerations that practitioners should be cognizant of ought to be a matter for nature scot and accredited training bodies it would be highly unusual for ministers to prescribe syllabus content in this way thank you um before i ask the minister to come in i'm going to make a contribution i wonder whether minister in his contribution could confirm whether the licences suggested within collin smith's amendment actually are compliant with international agreement on the cumane trapping standards i would like confirmation on that now call the minister thank you very much convener and i have to say it's quite strange being sitting at this end of the table having spent the last two years sitting in the seat that Emma Harper is now sitting in so um yeah it feels a little bit odd for me i don't know how odd it feels for you but anyway we will crack on speaking to edward mountains amendments 18 to 13 14 15 and 16 the very review recommended that trap operators must be required by law to complete training on the relevant category of trap training requirements are common in other professions especially always relating to animal welfare and i know that the scottish gamekeepers association similar organisations organizations already undertake a lot of training and i absolutely welcome that i was pleased to hear that alec hog has indicated that the scottish gamekeepers association were happy with the training requirements outlined in the bill and i want to assure him and the association that we would want their expertise and knowledge to inform the development of training alongside other stakeholders however the amendments by edward mountain would create an unnecessary barrier for trap users and training operators amendments 13 14 and 15 would exclude much of the existing training that trap users already undertake as part of their wider professional development and in some cases would result in applicants being required to undertake licensed specific training over and above this for example these amendments would not allow the relevant authority likely to be nature scott to validate courses such as the hnd or h hnc or hnd in gamekeeping if they were to be if they were to incorporate training on the use of traps in their curriculum and developing the framework for training courses the scottish government and nature scott will work with stakeholders to ensure that if a fee is to be charged for training courses the cost is accessible and a consideration will be given to providing for exemptions in certain circumstances amendment 16 and 180 simply add an extra level of bureaucracy into the training course creation and approval process the licensing authority will be responsible for ensuring that any approved training courses cover the standards required by the bill and other pieces of legislation should they feel as necessary to do so they already have the power to consult with anyone they deem it appropriate as part of the training course designation process therefore not only are these amendments unnecessary they impose additional duties on practitioners and the licensed authority at a point when the training courses are required to be updated and lead to delays in the approval process that wouldn't be helpful to either licensed applicants or the licensed authority who would have to manage the additional ministry of burden created by these amendments so i can't support amendments 180 13 14 15 and 16 and i would encourage members to vote against them colonel smiths amendments 120 and 121 the intention of the bill is not to introduce purposes for which some wildlife traps may be used to ensure that wildlife traps that are used are operated in line with training and best practice the traps covered by the provisions in the bill are largely used by professionals such as keepers and land managers rather than for domestic use so i expect the training to be based around the existing conditions for the use of each trap each type of trap for example a set out in the spring traps approval order this means that a training should be easily completed for anyone currently undertaking leol trapping on this basis i don't think amendments 120 and 121 that colonel smith proposes are necessary as these aspects of trapping best practice will be included in the required training course if these amendments were pressed i'll encourage the committee to vote against them and to answer your specific question can be the spring trap specified in the license scheme are those specified in the spring trap approval order that order lists the traps compliant with a i hds and traps used for live capture birds are not required to be compliant thank you minister edwin mounted to wind up and presser withdrawal amendment 180 thank you very much and i'm disappointed to hear what the minister said in relation specifically to amendment 180 and 16 both of those he almost indicated that he was prepared to go on 180 in the sense that it would require consultation and he said consultation would take place so i'm unsure why he does not want to support amendment 180 180 and i'm unsure why he would not want to console support amendment 16 because that just asked for people who are using the traps to be included to in the design of the courses and the content of the courses i do understand why he is not able to support amendment 14 but i take heart in the fact that at amendment 14 he said that the cost of the course should be reasonable so i would be prepared to withdraw amendment 14 providing the minister would be prepared to discuss with me a form of wording that would enable the that to be reflected in the bill as far as amendment 13 i hear what the course the minister says but if amendment 14 is agreed or the minister is prepared to move on amendment 14 then i would be in a position to withdraw amendment 13 on the basis amendment 13 is to try and limit the overall cost i would take an intervention it's just going back to amendment 16 if you don't mind the obviously this is a very practical amendment which a lot the scosh government often co-design schemes with practitioners and i don't see i'm i'm you know very happy to support this amendment and i don't see why scosh government shouldn't consider that based on the experience and knowledge that practitioners have and i think the fact i agree with the member and i think the fact that the minister referred to alex hog who is the chairman of the sga a man with a huge experience in these things of these matters and has supported the courses that by including them in say the consultation and how the courses should be drawn up would seem to be logical so i that is why amendments 180 and 16 to me seem entirely relevant and convener i in summary if the minister i'm happy to let the minister in to give me some guidance on 13 or 15 but if not i'm going to push them all all um to to a vote community thank you no yeah minister are you yep yep no i'm happy to i'm happy to discuss further where Edward Mountain point 13 14 i thought you said 13 no 13 sorry sorry convener i'm sorry my apologies your year what i was saying that i understand that the number of days which is amendment 13 is difficult for the minister understand the amendment 15 which is again on the amount on the number of days are difficult but i do believe that amendment 14 which is a reason to do with reasonable cost is an area that i would like to examine with the minister to make sure that it's not too onerous and precludes people from taking part in the training courses okay i'm happy to discuss amendment 14 i apologize that was my mistake as far as amendment 16 requires nature scot to consult parties who are likely to be interested in the effect it's likely that nature scot may consult with relevant parties when creating and approving a training course however is the relevant licence authority they are chiefly responsible for ensuring that any approved training course covers the standards required by the bill and other pieces of legislation so therefore it has to give nature scot the um the discretion as to what that training course is going to be but absolutely in consultation with the practitioners as i've already stated thank you edw'r mountain to press withdraw amendment 180 our convener i press amendment 180 the question is that amendment 180 be agreed to are we all agreed we are not agreed there will be a division those members supporting the amendment please raise your hand now those members not supporting the amendment those members wishing to abstain and the result of the vote is four for five against the amendment therefore has not been agreed i call amendment 120 in the name of collin smith are already already debated with amendment 180 collin smith to move or not move it is disappointing that the minister won't support what i think is a a pretty modest proposal particularly given that the suggestion that the training would simply be reviewed by the scotish animal welfare commission which is an organisation the scotish government themselves set up for that type of purpose and i think to say the longer this bill is debated the more the commitment given in evidence that a key aim in the bill was to improve quote animal welfare outcomes even when traps are used lawfully it is looking increasingly like rhetoric from scotish government officials rather than anything that's reflected in the bill i do however take on board what the minister said that that the issue that i've raised will be covered in the training itself i would like to discuss that further with the minister before we get to stage three to outline exactly how that would be the case ideally we could see some of the training before then but if not at the very least to get more information on that so i won't at this stage move this amendment but obviously subject to that discussion consider bringing it back at stage three thank you mr smith um did any other member wish to move that amendment no the amendment has not been moved i call on amendment 130 a bigger pardon i call amendment 13 in the name of edward mountain already debated with amendment 180 edward mountain to move or not move not moved on the grounds the minister will discuss amendment 14 thank you thank you not moved i call amendment 121 in the name of collin smith already debated with amendment 180 collin smith to move or not move convener i will move amendment 121 sometime ago in response to my member's debate on ethical principles and wildlife management the government did say we consider such an approach well this is a test as to whether this is just the usual aim to rhetoric we've come to expect or is something the government are seriously considering so i will move the amendment at this stage thank you the question is that amendment 121 be agreed to are we all agreed we are not agreed there will be a division those members supporting the amendment please raise your hand now those opposed to the amendment those abstaining and the result of the vote is four one against eight the amendment therefore has not been agreed i call amendment 14 in the name of edward mountain already debated with amendment 180 edward mountain to move or not move not moving this amendment is for the reasons given earlier thank you i call amendment 15 in the name of edward mountain already debated with amendment 180 edward mountain to move or not move not move for the reasons given earlier thank you i call amendment 16 in the name of edward mountain already debated with amendment 180 edward mountain to move or not move due to its reasonable mis for including other people i will move that amendment the question A phais gdaeth dependendingr, kellid yn stallion beggarsat yn i ddweud. Llyniad E pinnedydgyn chwarae'n gwaith yn ei ddis fans. A ddiw i ni ddigwydd yn drefnog honno goesg cancer o rydw i ni. Dag mae'n ei ddiwlch am pawn ni ddig Award in British City. Daf hyn y chasu'n amdd சanddendys de because I'm going. Llyniad Eopard, roi nebl angholweddau i gael IMS F suggests and bydd a recall amendment 57 on the name of Rachel Hamilton, which was already debated with amendment 177, Rachel Hamilton, having dud up or not to find another amendment. The question is that, amendment 57 has to be agreed to, but are we all agreed to? We are not agreed to, but there will be a division. Those members supporting amendment 57 please raise your hand. Those who beautiful are not supporting amendment 57 are not within agreement. chipsw Courant. Mae'r gwrsfawr iawn droi ddoch i ddiweddangos i'r amendment yn hynny wedi'i bywyd i'r Fynllwy Carson. Mae'r Fynllwy Carson wedi ar ddigonol i'i amendment 78, ac yn hyn yn hynny'n ddigonol i'r amendment 80 yn iddo. Are we all agreed? Abertawn hwnnw, nid o'r ddifusio, wrth gwrs yn ei ddigonol i'r amendment, rwyf yn ddigonol i'r amendment Those wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 4-4-5 against. Amendment is therefore not being agreed. I call amendment 58 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 177. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 59 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 60, 69 and 70. Minister to move amendment 59 and speak to all amendments in the group. Okay, bear with me, convener, and sort my papers out here. Convener, thank you. These are technical amendments 59, 68, 69 and 70. They have no practical impact on the effect of the provisions of the bill. They simply correct grammar of provisions that have been amended by the bill to take account of the amendments. Amendment 59 and 60 remove error in its conjunctions in section 47 and amendment 69, 70 remove a similar one in section 75 of the bill. I encourage all committee members to vote for them and I move the amendment. Any other members? No. Minister to wind up? I'll move the amendment, convener. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 60 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 59. Minister to move formally. I move, convener. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Thank you. I now call amendment 61 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 17, 122, 123 and 124. The minister to move amendment 61 and speak to all amendments in this group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 61. Following stage 1, the then minister, Gillian Martin, received feedback from stakeholders asking for an exception to allow Faulkner to take red grouse without requiring a licence. Amendment 61 seeks to address those concerns. Having considered this amendment, I agree and support the amendment 61. With the purpose of introducing the licence scheme was to implement the recommendations of the verity review and the verity review focused on the management of grouse more and in particular raptor persecution associated with grouse shooting rather than a falconry. Without amendment 61, Faulkner would either need to apply for a licence or only way to hunt grouse by using the birds of prey on land already covered by a licence. Given that Faulkner's only take, Faulkner's only take a very small number of red grouse across Scotland each year, that seems unnecessarily burdensome. I ask the committee that they mirror this view and support this amendment. I should also add at this point that my daughter has bought me a birthday present of a day of falconry just in the interest of making sure that there's a declaration. Thank you. I call Edward Mountain to speak to amendments 17 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. The point of amendment 17 is to ensure that the bill complies with the grounds that it was set out for. This bill is effectively to deal with upland moorland management and grouse shooting, so the rationale between on amendments 17 is to remove other birds that are not part of upland moorland management or grouse shooting, which means to add any birds to the list of birds that are controlled by this act. Can't be done unless in the case of other game birds, unless they are at the level where they have reached a level of scarcity, i.e. are on the amber or red list. There is a very real reason for doing this is that the industry is extremely concerned that this legal pastime of game shooting, which I understand some people are not in favour of, will be added into this bill at a later date to make sure that it to try and ban it. I think if the minister is truly clear on the reasons for this bill, the minister will ensure that this amendment number 17 is supported so that we can see there is a clear rationale for adding additional birds to the schedule rather than just by whim. As far as amendment 61 is concerned, the amendment regarding the minister for birds of prey, I am extremely glad and thankful that the Government has listened to those people who use birds of prey for falconry. Again, it is a legitimate field sport and I have huge respect for those people that do it. In some cases I would add doing so ensures the survival of the diversity of those species by ensuring that there is a captive breeding programme, so I think that that is good news. I do hope that the minister will consider carefully my amendment 17. It does not want to frustrate the bill. It wants to make sure that it does what it says on the tin, mule and management and grouse shooting, not other shooting, which is perfectly recognised and acceptable form of sport in Scotland. Thank you, convener. I call Rachel Hamilton to speak to amendment 122 and other amendments in the group. As articulated by Edward Mountain, the bill should remain focused on the remit of red grouse shooting. Part 1B currently only includes red grouse. However, the bill empowers the Scottish ministers to add further birds to the section 16AA licensing regime if they think appropriate to do so via secondary legislation. The consultation preceding the bill did not signal an intention to regulate other species, so it is likely to come as a surprise that this broad enabling power to rural stakeholders without grouse interests who will see this change as could have a significant downstream consequence for the sector more broadly. The bill's policy memorandum says the purpose of the scheme is to address the ongoing issue of wildlife crime and in particular the persecution of raptors on managed grouse moulds, which the committee all agrees with. It will do this by enabling a licence to be modified, suspended or revoked, where there is robust evidence of raptor persecution or another relevant wildlife crime related to grouse mould management. What else would you like me to do, convener? To speak to any other amendments in that group, you wish to speak to them. That's it. I call Rhoda Grant to speak to amendments 124 and other amendments in that group. Thank you, convener. I speak to 124 and other amendments in the group. My amendment 124, along with many of the others that I have lodged, seeks to create greater scrutiny and consultation on actions flown from the bill. Much of the bill is enabling and it is important that secondary legislation flown from it is also scrutinised. Currently, the bill only lists red grouses requiring a section 16AA licence, however, in future, other birds can be added to the list. My amendment stipulates that the relevant committee of this Parliament must be consulted and given time to take evidence before reporting back to the Scottish Government on any additions. Therefore, thereafter, the Scottish Government can lay their legislation while explaining what consideration it has given to the committee report. I am really trying to create a superaffirmative procedure to provide greater scrutiny, and I believe that that is essential, given the increase of enabling legislation that comes to this Parliament. I believe that that will fulfil the Aims-Fedward Mountains amendment number 17 regarding consultation. However, I cannot support the rest of his amendments on that of Rachael Hamilton. That legislation needs to be future proof to allow amendment to the list of birds that can be taken under a section 16AA licence, however, my amendment ensures that such a change would be done with full scrutiny from the Parliament. I just wanted to speak in reference to some of the concerns that have been shared by stakeholders about the capacity of additional birds to be added without scrutiny. I had some good conversations with the minister recognising that concern and balancing that with the need for legislation to not be overly prescriptive and broad so that it can take into account changing circumstances. I suppose that it was just to put on the record while I cannot support Rhoda Grant's amendment specifically. It was just to put on record the concerns of stakeholders, and I know that the minister understands the breadth of that worry. Amendment 17, 122 and 123 are seeking to severely restrict the power to add other birds to the licensing scheme established by section 7 of the bill. As I am sure Edward Mountain is well aware, the power to add any bird species to only allow them to be taken under licence is not a mechanism to protect that species but to protect other wildlife that predates on that species. The licensing scheme in this bill needs to protect raptors and other wildlife, and therefore the regulation making power to add other bird species to the scheme needs to remain as it is. That ensures that if in future we have a robust evidence that wildlife crimes like raptor persecution are being committed to facilitate the managing of other bird species, we are able to regulate the management of those birds. For that reason, I encourage members to vote against those amendments. I hear what the minister says, but I think that you are sending a very dangerous message or an unconcerned message to those people who carry out field sports in Scotland. It is an industry that is approved by law and regulation, and they should have the confidence that that should be able to continue unless there is clear evidence that the species that they are hunting are actually subject to the fear of going extinct, which is why I put amber and red species to be only to be added. Do you not think that the Government, by saying what you are saying, is saying that everyone is not just about grasmol management, it is every single field sport that is in your sights? Excuse me. No, I am not. What I am saying is that there has to be the facility to be able to bring that licensing forward if there is clear evidence that wildlife crime is happening in a different type of shoot, which I do not need to explain to Edward Mountain that that is very possible and that it does happen. Minister, this is quite a significant enabling power, and obviously for the reasons that I gave earlier, this bill is about a licensing scheme to tackle raptor persecution on grasmol specifically. What, as Edward Mountain has said, this enabling power is doing is looking to the future to target the country sports such as released game birds. What would be the trigger for the enabling power and what would be the threshold of monitoring raptor persecution in other country sports? As I have just said, it would have to be a clear indication that a crime had taken place, but as we are not legislating in that area at this moment in time, it is merely giving the powers and those powers would have to be brought back. Then there are safeguards there for the industry to be able to make their own recommendations or to make their own defence if those powers have to be brought into force. I completely disagree, sorry minister, but that is your opinion, and I just think that it gives Scottish ministers wide-ranging and powerful enabling powers to do what they like in terms of adding to the list of the specific species in that circumstance, and that is why I do not support this enabling power. Amendment 124, we regard amendment 124 as Gillie Martin explained when she spoke to a number of other similar amendments during day 1 of this debate, these changes are not necessary. The amendment adds additional burden to the Scottish Parliament when there are already established procedures in place for changes through secondary legislation. It could lead to unnecessary delays in adding or removing birds from the list which could have consequences for the natural environment. Any amendment to add a new type of bird species to part 1B of the schedule 2 would be subject to affirmative procedure, and Parliament will have the opportunity to consider the instrument and draft to take evidence in the instrument and vote on it. That is the correct procedure for any such amending instruments. I ask the committee to support amendment 61 to allow Falkners to take red grouse without requiring a licence, and I also ask the committee to vote against the amendment. I am a little concerned that it is just the affirmative procedure for this, in that there will be people who need to be consulted. What reassurance can he give me that this will be widely consulted on before such an order would be put in front of the Parliament? As I have just said, there is an affirmative procedure that will bring it back to the Parliament to be able to make that consideration. I can also just add the power to add additional game birds to the 16A licence was considered by both this committee and the Delegated Powers Law and Reform Committee, who found that the powers acceptable and principle and content its subject to affirmative procedure. The Rain Committee notes and agrees with the DPRC's conclusion that the powers are acceptable and that the affirmative procedure is appropriate. The Scottish ministers would also be required to consult before adding any birds, so the committee actually agrees with the principles of this in previous sessions. Just for absolute clarity, because again I know that the minister fully understands some of the apprehension, but what I am hearing from the minister is that there would be an obligation on consultation, there would be a parliamentary procedure, so it would not just be the case of ministers making a decision in a dark room without engaging with stakeholders, which I think is the key in terms of offering assurance. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 17 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 61, Edward Mountain to move or not move. I feel forced to move this because I have received no reassurances from the Government nor is it laid down in legislation what the procedure would be for other birds to be laid down except for some words given today, so I press amendments, haven't you? At this point, to remind members to limit their comments to moving or not moving when I ask the question and try to make sure that they cover all the possibilities when the opportunity they have to speak when they are moving or speaking to the amendment. Can I double check that you are moving or not moving that amendment? I am point duly taking, convener, and I press amendment 17. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, please raise your hand now. Those against. Those members abstaining. The result of the vote is two for, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 122 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 61, Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 122 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, please raise your hand now. Those against. Those abstaining. The result is two for, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 123 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 61, Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 123 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support of the amendment, those against. Those members wish to abstain. The result of the vote is two for, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 124 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 61. Rhoda Grant to move or not move. The question is that section 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 125 in the name of Stephen Kerr, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I remind members that amendments 81 and 63 are direct alternatives, as they can both be moved and decided on. The text of whichever is the last agreed is what will appear on the bill. I call on Jamie Halcro Johnston to move the amendment Stephen Kerr's name. That is amendment 125 and speak to all amendments in that group. I am delighted to be able to speak on behalf of these amendments and also to represent some of the reasons and concerns Stephen Kerr has with this and some of the other amendments in this group. 125 replaces the appropriateness test with a fit and proper person test in order to address widely held concerns about the lack of certainty arising from the appropriateness test by ensuring that license applications are granted unless the application is not an individual who is considered fit to hold a license as a matter of fact in law. The appropriateness test is likely to cause legal and operational uncertainty that could be damaging to rural Scotland. Appropriate is not defined in the bill. The only guidance given is that NatureScot, I quote, shall have regard to compliance with the code of practice. However, this is not the only factor that it can take into account. The code of practice which has yet to be developed will include best practice guidance on matters that have nothing to do with the policy objective of tackling raptor persecution. It is also concerning that NatureScot's assessment of appropriateness is not confined to identifiable and relevant individual, i.e. the applicant or land manager. Stephen Kerr was also concerned that it creates a two-tiered approach to decision making in which license applications could be refused on lower grounds than they can be suspended or revoked. That's logical. The effects of a license refusal, suspension or revocation are the same. The land cannot operate as a grouse more, meaning the right holders will suffer substantial losses in terms of capital and income, quality rural jobs and the accommodation tied to them will become redundant. Rural economies could suffer and so too will the privately funded land management that benefits red and amber listed species and mitigates wildfire risks. Put simply, it could create a system where rights are restricted by the back door in cases where NatureScot do not have sufficient evidence to justify a license suspension or revocation. So simply wait until the license expires and refuse to grant a new one on the basis of its discretionary interpretation of appropriateness. Amendments 128 and 129 are critical safeguards in the face of an increasingly overburdened regulator. NatureScot process some 5,000 licensing applications annually, meaning there is a tangible risk that section 16AA licences face undue delays in processing. Given the significant economic value associated with grouse shooting and the immediate significant consequences of not having a licence come 12 of August, we feel is vital that a safeguard be built into this licensing scheme that will safeguard against delays caused by an increasingly overburdened regulator. If I can briefly turn to other amendments. Amendment 130 in the name of Colin Smyth, the committee heard from the ministers officials that the primary purpose of the code of practice in this particular legislation is to enable the licensing authority to have regard to how much or otherwise an applicant has complied with it. It also heard that the code of practice will, like most codes of practice, have a range of recommendations. There will be things that you must absolutely comply with. That is legal requirements. There will be things that you really should comply with, and there will be things that are good practice. There will also be things that you must do all the time and there will be other things that you will not have to do. The requirement to have regard to the code of practice as reflected in the bill is laid is a common way of incorporating code of practice into primary legislation. It would require the licence holder to be aware of the code's provisions to keep that awareness up to date, taking into account any revisions that are made to it, and to consider how the code may be relevant to particular actions and activities on the land. This amendment has the effect of radically changing how the licensing scheme will operate by providing that licences must slavishly comply with every detail of still to be developed guidance, much of which will likely have nothing to do with raptor persecution. Otherwise, their licence may be refused, suspended or revoked. That is wholly disproportionate approach to regulation and removes the licensing scheme from any rational connection with its declared purpose in relation to raptor persecution, leaving the bill wide open to legal challenge. It also amendments 131 and also the name of Colin Smyth. It is impossible to understand the reasons behind the collection of this data and duty placed on the licence, the purpose of section 16 AA. Licensing is to tackle raptor persecution of raptors. It is not concerned with the number of grass shot or the legal management, other wild birds of animals under general licences. Reporting lawful activity has no deterrent effect at all and is therefore not connected to the aim. The proposed reporting requirements therefore have no rational connection to the policy aim and would disproportionately burden the licences for correspondingly little public gain. Information about the number of grass shot is commercially sensitive and if made publicly available could be detrimental to rights holders. Moreover, unagredated species data is not useful to the public, the regulator or policy makers. Credit control is undertaken in a number of other land management contexts such as farming. Singling out one sector for additional recording requirements would be disproportionate and inconsistent with the principle of a quality of treatment that underpins natural justice by which the Scottish Government banned. I move amendment 125 in the name of Stephen Kerr. Amendment 62 ensures that any licence conditions are reasonable and necessitates, in other words, the imposition of reasonable licence conditions only. Amendment 63 provides a 10-year licence that would ensure the greatest clarity for land managers and is most consistent with the type of investment and land management associated with Scotland's grouse malls. 10 years provides optimum certainty for investment, livelihoods and the wider supply chain and the economy and the rural economy is so important just now. 10-year licences would ensure that sustainable grouse small management could continue under licence with greater opportunities to bolster efforts to deliver on climate and biodiversity targets due to the longer timeframe allowing for enhanced forward planning. Amendment 132, we know that more than management for grouse shooting is often managed for other purposes. Examples include hill farming, deer, peatland restoration and renewables. In light of the increasingly mixed use nature of grouse malls, it follows that any licensing decision is made with reference to the taking or killing of red grouse in isolation. It would not be right, in my opinion, that a grouse mall operator suffers a sanction on the back of, for example, a person that rents the land and this simple amendment provides for that. The effect of this amendment is to make it clear that it is only the conduct of the person managing the land for the purpose of the licence, i.e. grouse mall management, and that can trigger licensing penalties. However, it cannot be right for the person managing the land for the purpose unrelated to the licence, for example, and agricultural tenants resulting in the licence being suspended despite the land management in question, having no tie to the licenced activity or to put it in another way, the management of the grouse mall. That is irrational, given the purpose of the licence scheme, is to tackle raptor persecution connected with grouse mall management. I now call Emma Harper to speak to amendment 81 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I'm pleased to move this amendment. Amendment number 81 increases the maximum period for which a grouse licence may be granted from one year to five years. That is an issue that has been brought up by many land managers and estate owners, including by land managers and estate owners in Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders. I understand that it featured heavily in much of the evidence that this committee heard and considered at stage one. As is the case with many other businesses, grouse mall management is a long-term undertaking and it requires careful planning and upfront capital investment. Land managers, which my office has engaged with as recently as yesterday, have expressed concerns that an annual licence won't provide the certainty needed to undertake long-term financial and business planning for the management of grouse mallers. NatureScot also reassured the committee during their stage one evidence that it would prefer more flexibility on the licence duration. I quote, a licence duration of between three and five years sounds about right and sits more comfortably with other civil licensing schemes that we know work well. I also know that when giving evidence, as the then minister for this bill, Gillian Martin MSP, indicated at stage one that she was willing to consider a change to the duration of the licence. I know that some have called for a shift to 10-year licences, as we have just heard from Rachel Hamilton's amendment number 63, that that proposes to make that change, but that feels too long in terms of being able to assess any changes in circumstances, as has been indicated by RSPB Scotland. It is right for there to be a periodic review of licence holders, whatever the licence may be, and renewal allows that to happen. A maximum licence duration of five years seems to strike the right balance any longer than this could undermine the effectiveness of the licence scheme. A five-year licence will give land managers and estates the certainty they need to manage and invest in their businesses, while ensuring that the licence and authority retains enough oversight to make sure that everyone is adhering to statutory requirements and best practice. Thank you very much, convener. Amendment 130 in my name would make the code of practice introduced by the bill for land management under section 16A, a licence mandatory. The wording of my amendment, in particular the inclusion of the phrase relevant to the management of the area of land in question, clearly addresses the question of whether a person must comply with all aspects of the code where some will not apply to the land or management in question, which has previously been mentioned as a reason the code cannot be mandatory. The wording of the code could also easily set out the circumstances where each part of the code is relevant. Suggestions from Jamie Halcro Johnston—I have to say word from word from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation Scotland Land and Estates—brief and note that every aspect of the code must slavishly be followed in every single circumstances is simply untrue and is not reflected in the actual wording of the amendment. I have to say that such a claim maybe reflects the weakness of the arguments against the amendment. The fact is that a requirement only to have regard to a code of practice is not, in my view, strong enough. The question remains, when the code is relevant to the land being managed, how do we ensure that the code is followed? Under the current wording, you can't. Having regard will not ensure that the code is followed when it should be. My amendment will ensure that it is, importantly, when it is relevant to the management of the area of land in question. Again, in response to Jamie Halcro Johnston's comments on a judicial review, which I know also comes from the briefing note, every piece of legislation is open to judicial review, but just because you don't like having something in the law isn't grounds for a judicial review. I have to say my advice to Scotland Land and Estates and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, who are the only ones making this claim about a judicial review. If your lawyer is seriously telling you that the amendment is grounds for a judicial review, then, frankly, maybe you should get yourself another lawyer because it is simply untrue. Amendment 131 would provide a degree of accountability that is currently lacking with regard to the number of birds and animals killed, both the game birds shot and the animals killed because they are seen as a threat to those birds. The amendment would allow authorities to gauge the numbers of targeted and non-targeted animals being trapped and killed, which is surely important to allow a full understanding of species biodiversity as outlined in quite a lot of detail when I moved amendment 117. It is important to stress that this is a requirement to report to the relevant authority for consideration, not publishing public commercially sensitive information about an individual licence holder. I repeat the question that I asked when I moved amendment 117. If you do not agree with reporting this information, what is it that you are trying to hide? It has been raised with me that section 78B2 in practice means that a licence can be revoked due to wrongdoing by another person outwith the control of the licence holder, someone who is not contracted by them or indeed not an employee. For example, a farmer who is a tenant on land. The amendment intends to make it clear that a licence can only be suspended or revoked should the licence conditions be breached by the licence holder or by somebody in their employment or under their direction. I also support amendment 81, as it stands the bill, will make section 16A a licence holder reapply every year, which is not sustainable given a licence can be revoked. I believe that a five-year licence provides the best balance, and I believe that there was broad consensus around this. I have sympathy with amendment 125 on what it is adding, but I am really concerned about what it is removing and that it safeguards from the bill to adhere to the code of practice. I will leave my comments at that, convener. Thank you. Edward Mountain. Thank you very much, convener. I may, if I may, I would like to indulge the committee briefly on amendments 63, which is raised by my colleague Rachel Hamilton. The reason for asking for an extension of the time period from five to ten years is purely on the fact that it has a huge effect on whether a business is viable. I do not think that anyone really probably understands that just to buy anago cap without a sprayer on the back is going to probably cost you £35,000. Add on to that a land driver or a vehicle to get round the land that you are managing, add another £30,000 on to add on the traps and all the rest of the equipment that you will need to go on the training courses provided a house for the employee, you are probably looking at an investment department to just start up with one employee of north of £150,000 and every year the running cost for these places are exceptionally large. Now, the point of having a 10-year licence would be that it gave some surety and would give some security, most importantly, to the people that are employed there because there is a real fear, you know, that jobs are here today and may be gone tomorrow and a five-year licence could just bring that. Everyone knows and I'm sure Ms Forbes knows the fragility of the rural countryside and of jobs and gamekeepers on upland estates when it comes to management, so therefore protecting their jobs and giving the investor some surety I think is important, which is why it supports it going to 10 years. The other issue is I'm a slightly concerned convener with amendment 131 in the name of Colin Smith, which am I in the right section? I am in the right section, I think. Yes, yes, yes, I am. 131 in the name of Colin Smith, sorry, I thought I'd got myself confused there. Colin Smith wants to record every single animal that is killed or taken on the land which the licence relates to, so we're going to have a long list of rats and mice and every other kind of species that you can possibly want to record, Mr Smith. I'm not sure what benefit that will accrue at the end of the day. There might have been some way this amendment could have been supported if it was targeted at speeches that exclude rats and mice. It might have been important to include animals, which we want to keep track of their spread and those that are being killed, for example mink, which there is an encouragement to remove as they are an invasive species. So I would urge the committee to support amendment 63 in the name of Rachel Hamilton and not to support the amendment 131 in the name of Colin Smith. Thank you, convener. Amendment 125 in the name of Stephen Care requires that licensed authority must grant a licence if satisfied that the person is a fit and proper person having a garden, particularly to the applicants compliance with the code of practice made in accordance with section 16 AC. In the absence of a definition of a fit and proper person, it's not clear what this amendment will achieve. The policy intention made clear all along is that obtaining a section 16 AA license will not be a bureaucratic process. If the applicant produces the required information about the land that is subject to the licence and the licence and the authority has no reason to doubt their compliance with the code of practice, then there is generally no reason to think that a licence will not be granted. To put it another way, NatureScot will take into account compliance with the code of practice as a way of determining how a fit and proper an applicant is. However, NatureScot does need to have some discretion to deal with unusual cases. I fear that attempting to add a definition of fit and proper person and then assessing whether an applicant meets that definition adds a second test for those applicants and will create the potential for unintended consequences and loopholes. For those reasons, I would ask Stephen Care not to be pressing that amendment, and if he does, I would encourage members to vote against it. Amendment 128 in the name of Stephen Care provides that a section 16 AA licence will be deemed to have been granted where NatureScot has not processed the application within three months. Amendment 129 provides that the licence would have effect from the date that is deemed to have been granted, and I understand that there is anxiety about the possible time taken for a licence application processing. There are a number of factors that can affect the time that will take the process of licence, including how long it takes for the applicant to get back to NatureScot with additional information that they have requested. However, in fact, where the applicant has supplied all the required information, NatureScot aimed to process most applications within 30 days and will prioritise urgent applications, and it would urge them to do so. If the bill is passed, NatureScot will produce licensing guidance and collaboration with stakeholders that will set out clearly how a licence can be applied for, what information is needed to process the application and how it will be assessed and granted. At any event, the amendments are flawed in a few respects. First, the amendment does not recognise that the application process could be delayed by inadequate information being provided by the applicant or by NatureScot making inquiries or requiring further information about certain aspects. That could then lead to applications being granted automatically through the pass of your time, even where the application is flawed, inappropriate or in respect of which there is incomplete information. That would fundamentally undermine the policy and tension of introducing the licensing scheme, which I suspect might be the real purpose of the amendment in the first place. In relation to amendment 129, I would also note that, as drafted, the provision would have the effect of removing the maximum duration period for all section 16AA licences. For this reasons, I will not support these amendments and encourage members to vote against them. Amendment 62, Rachel Hamilton, amends section 165AA111, to specify that any conditions the relevant authority places on section 16AA licences must be reasonable. This amendment seems satisfactory to me and I am happy to support it. Amendment 81, Emma Harper, spoke to on behalf of myself and this is where it gets a bit weird. Amends the maximum period a gross licence can be granted from one to five years. Obviously, I have heard the arguments as to why one year is not satisfactory for a section 16AA licence duration. As lead minister for the bill, I agree that five years strikes the right balance between allowing businesses to plan ahead and keep to a minimum the process involved in licensing, with the need to nature Scotland to retain a degree of control over activity that is subject of the licence. I support amendment 81 and hope that members do too. Amendment 63, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, amends the maximum period a licence to grant it from one year to ten years. I have just said that I agree that the duration of a section 16A licence needs to be extended beyond a single year, but I think that ten years is too long and will not provide the degree of control and oversight that this bill aims to put in place. Therefore, I do not support this amendment and I hope that Rachel Hamilton will not press it. If she does, I encourage members to vote against it. Amendment 13, in the name of Colin Smyth. The effect of this amendment would be that a 16A licence holder would be required to comply with all aspects of the code that are relevant to the management of the land in question. This amendment would be unlikely to work with the code of practice that is being developed. Like other codes in this area, it is expected to contain elements that are legal requirements and absolutely must be complied with, alongside other elements that are highly recommended for all and also some that may represent very pressed practice, but might only be achievable by estates with significant resources. Compliance with the entirety of the code may vary according to the nature of the land and the management, its size and the resources available to the business. That flexibility seems reasonable and, in some cases, it will be necessary. Compliance with the code may also improve over time as estates put in place new elements of best practice as resources and skills are developed. The net result from the amendment therefore could be a code that represented a lowest common denominator rather than the highest of standards. NatureScot will, of course, be looking to move estates along that pathway to achieve the best standards and this can be reflected in regular dialogue about compliance. I think that that is a better approach and for that reason we will not be supporting this amendment and encourage committee members to vote against it. Amendment 131 from Colin Smyth also requires that a 16a licence holder to maintain records of the numbers and species of all wild mammals, birds and animals that are killed or taken on land to which the licence relates and report these to the relevant authority on an annual basis. I do not believe that this amendment is necessary nor proportionate. It is also not clear what purpose this would serve nor whose purpose it would serve and for some it might prove onerous and costly. It is simply not standard practice to include this kind of information as a mandatory condition and a licence. The bill is intended to set out the framework for licences so that guidance could be set out in consultation with stakeholders which allows the licence and scheme to be responsive and dynamic and that feels like a much better approach. For all those reasons I will not support amendment 131 and ask members to vote against it. Amendment 132 requires that only conduct of the licence holder or a person who is involved in the managing of the land for the purpose of killing or taking red grouse can be a basis upon which a licence may be suspended or revoked. This amendment would mean that if someone else working in the land, for example a shepherd, committed a relevant offence then that licence could not be suspended. The amendment would mean that where a person managing the land commits a relevant offence, for example a gamekeeper and a grouse estate, the licence holder could simply get rid of that gamekeeper and get to carry on using their licence, even if they had instructed the offence to be committed in the first place. I understand the concern here and I would certainly expect NatureScot to carefully consider a sort of evidence and take it into account when considering whether to suspend or revoke a licence. However, I am also very mindful of the need to avoid loopholes in this licence scheme. It is not hard to envisage how someone determined to persist with raptor persecution could take steps to cast suspicion on a person not employed directly in a grouse where either with or without their knowledge, simply in order to prevent any possible licence in sanction. For that reason I will not be supporting this amendment and encourage the members to vote against it. Amendment 133 in the name of Rhoda Grant provides that a grouse licence can only be suspended or revoked where a relevant offence has been committed by the licence holder or someone under the direction of the licence holder. Again, my concern here is that this creates a potential loophole. We know from past experience that there are some grouse moon managers that will persist with raptor persecution in the face of strong opposition from the public and their peers as well as law enforcement activity and it wouldn't be hard for a licence holder to argue that any offence committed was not under their direction. I therefore cannot support this amendment and encourage the committee members to vote against that as well. On that point, there is quite a lot of concern surrounding this in that people could break the law on the land pertaining to the licence without the knowledge agreement and it is to find the right balance. Can he give assurances that NatureScot would be reasonably convinced that an offence was carried out under the direction of the licence holder? You can obviously ignore things and turn a blind eye, which would leave you, I believe, guilty as well. However, where offences are carried out explicitly against the will of the landowner, they would not have their licence revoked. That is why there is a provision that offences must be revelant to the grouse moon management. It allows NatureScot to have the flexibility not to take action. They are not required to suspend a licence. They have the ability to do so if they are convinced that the crime has been committed in the manner that we have spoken about. If someone was suspected of committing an offence, if someone was suspected of committing an offence, would they not automatically get their licence suspended? No, NatureScot has the flexibility to be able to decide. How long does that take through an investigation? That will be up to NatureScot and the grouse moon manager to have that conversation. By not supporting Rhoda Grant's amendment, it means that the individual is under suspicion and then having to go through an investigation and have their licence suspended for an indefinite period of time. Therefore, they are under suspicion from the get-go. I understand the concern, but NatureScot has to have the flexibility to be able to suspend a licence or not. They do not have to suspend it. That is the most important point. It is not a requirement to suspend a licence. I call on Jamie Halcro Johnston to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 125. I think that highlighted some of the intentions behind the bill. It is harder to have as much confidence in how they will be practically implemented in the legislation. I will be pressing the amendment on Stephen Kerr's behalf. Perhaps there could be a future of further engagement with the minister and Mr Kerr on those areas. The question is that amendment 125 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, please raise your hand now. Those against, please raise your hands now. Those abstaining. The result of the vote is two for, seven against. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 126, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 111. Rachel Hamilton, please raise your hand now. The question is that amendment 126 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment, please raise your hands now. Those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is two for, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 2, in the name of John Mason, already debated with amendment 111. Allister Allen, to move or not move. Mr Mason's indicator doesn't wish to move. I call amendment 127, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 111. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 127 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. There will be a division. Those for, please raise your hands now. Those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is two for, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 128, in the name of Stephen Kerr, already debated with amendment 125. Jamie Halcro Johnston, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 128 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment, please raise your hands now. Those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is three for, six against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 62, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 125. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 129, in the name of Stephen Kerr, already debated with amendment 125. Jamie Halcro Johnston, to move or not move. And the question is that amendment 129 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment, please raise your hands now. Those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is two for, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been approved. I call amendment 81, in the name of Jim Fairlie, already debated with amendment 125. I remind members that amendments 81 and 63 are direct alternatives. The text of whichever is the last agreed is what will appear in the bill. Emma Harper, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 63, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 125. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is two for, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 130, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 125. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. And the question is that amendment 130 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is one for, eight against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 131, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 125. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 131 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support of the amendment, please raise your hand. Those against, those members abstaining. The result of the vote is one for, eight against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 132, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 125. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 132 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is three for, six against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 133, in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 125. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move. I call amendment 49, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 179. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 64, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 179. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support, please raise your hand now. Those against, those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two for, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 134, in the name of Stephen Kerr, already debated with amendment 179. Jamie Halcro Johnston, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 134 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support, please raise your hand now. Those against, those members abstaining. The result of the vote is two for, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 65, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 179. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. Not moved on the basis that the minister is working with me. I call amendment 66, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 179. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support, please raise your hand now. Those members against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is four for, five against. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 67, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 179. Minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 135, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 179. Beatrice Wishart, to move or not move. I call amendment 135A. Oh no, I beg your pardon. Okay, it wasn't moved. I call amendment 50, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 179. Minister, to formally move. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 68, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 179. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those against. Those members abstaring. The result of the vote is two for seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 82, in the name of Karen Adam, already debated with amendment 179. Alistair Allan, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those against. Those members abstaining. The result of the vote is seven for two against. The amendment has therefore been agreed. I call amendment 136, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 179. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 136 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those against. Those members abstaining. The result of the vote is two for seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 18, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 179. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those against. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two for seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 137, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 179. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 137 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those against. Those members abstaining. The result of the vote is two for seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 83, in the name of Jim Fairlie, grouped with amendments 138, 139 and 20. Emma Harper, to move amendment 83 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much again, convener. Again, I'm pleased to move this amendment. I know it was originally submitted by Jim Fairlie, who was sitting here just a couple of weeks ago. The bill currently provides that the Scottish ministers must prepare a code of practice relating to managing land to which a section 16AA gross licence relates. The code of practice was a recommendation of the Warrity review, and it is intended that it covers issues identified by Warrity, such as Medicaid grit. Within the bill section 16 AC 2 sets out examples of the type of guidance that might be included in the code of practice. At stage 1, a number of parties were concerned that there was no specific reference allowing Medicaid grit to be provided, raising concern that the silence might suggest that it was no longer legitimate. Amendment 83 adds the topic of Medicaid grit to the non-exhaustive list of those types of guidance and hopefully provides clarity and certainty on this matter. It has been specifically included as an amendment to the bill to make it transparent that the code would cover the use of Medicaid grit. Therefore, if a licence specifies that the Medicaid grit sections of the code must be complied with, then the failure to do so would be an offence under the bill, and so the licence would be able to be revoked or suspended on that ground. That is an important safeguard to ensure that the use of Medicaid grit is appropriate and meets good practice standards that are set out in the code. I move amendment 33 and encourage committee members to vote for it. I call Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 138 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. Amendments 138 and 139 in my name relate to the code of practice for a section 16AA licence. In the clause outlining what the code may in particular provide guidance on, A is, and I quote, How land should be managed to reduce disturbance of and harm to any wild animal, wild bird or wild plant. That sounds positive, but B and C in the section contradict A, as they only refer to how wild birds and predators should be killed rather than managed. The current wording assumes that killing wild birds and predators should continue to be the default means of control, which is questionable ethically and ecologically. My amendment would clearly not prevent killing but require the reasonable consideration of whether, when and how, birds or predators should be killed rather than implying that they will be as a first resort. Robbie Kernahan said in oral evidence that the code of practice should drive up standards and Hugh Dignan said that one of the Scottish Government's intentions was to quote, improve animal welfare outcomes even when traps are used lawfully and ensuring that the highest standards apply and that people operate into those high standards. Those warm words are meaningless unless they are reflected in the bill. If the code of practice to drive up standards is intended, I would ask members and the minister to support those amendments. Thank you, and I call on Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 20 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I am pleased to speak to amendment 20. That is my amendment to make sure that Scottish natural heritage or NatureScot, whichever name they are trading under on the current date, should consult persons that it considers likely to be interested or affected by the code of practice, including land managers. I think that that is fair and reasonable, inclusive, something that this Government claims to be. I would be very surprised if the minister would be against this. I am somewhat surprised by amendment 83. I am surprised because I have to direct this to the person who moved to Emma Harper, that she does not know that the use of all medication on land is covered by vets prescriptions. In the old days, can I just make a little bit more ground and then I will do it? Originally, when medicated grit was used, we used something called pan cure, which was put on the medicated grit. It is now used flu bensinol, which actually requires a veterinary prescription to use. You cannot just buy this and put it out. I am happy to take an intervention now from Ms Harper. Absolutely. Thank you for taking an intervention. In my research since coming back to the committee, I am absolutely aware that we used to use fen bensinol and we now use flu bensinol. There are issues and concerns around when it is used, how it is used and potential resistance. I have learned about the way that the grits are used. It is to support the welfare of the red grouse in order to deal with this parasitic, strong-guile thread worm. I am interested in that because my background is a nurse working in healthcare. I am used to looking at issues around managing medication. I do not think that it is right that you suggest that because I do not work on a rural area that I might not have knowledge about medicated grit. For instance, we all know how to research. I am interested in looking at how we manage best practice, support the best welfare and monitor the way that medicated grit is used. I think that it is worth bringing this amendment forward because I spoke to the minister to gather some background information. I was reassured that the amendment that was originally proposed by Jim Fairlie was reasonable to propose. I certainly take that intervention from Ms Harper in the spirit that it was meant. I did not question her knowledge of what medicines do, but I suggested politely knowing full well that she did not raise the amendment that is a farmer and a land user, which may use medication on animals. You cannot just go and buy it from some supermarket or of the dark web. You cannot buy a ton of medicated grit off the dark web. You buy it with a vet's prescription. You buy it with the correct procedures in place. You cannot go and scatter it wherever you need because the veterinary person who gave the script for that grit has to assure themselves that it is being used in accordance with the script that is being given. If there is any doubt about the good practice of medicated grit and the using it, it can simply be found under the game and wildlife conservation trust use for medicated grit, which includes a 28-day withdrawal period. I am afraid I took quite a long intervention from you earlier, so I think I have explained that it just cannot be used or acquired without significantly controls. Yes, I would accept that it might be to say that medicated grit that could be used, but I do not think it should go any further than that. As far as amendments 138 and 139, I believe those amendments from Mr Smith are too restrictive and prescriptive in the way that they do. I do beg the question from Mr Smith is how the killing or taking of a wild bird should be carried out, prioritising methods with the least negative animal welfare impact is? Is that shooting them? Is that trapping animals, not obviously birds, because you can't shoot, sorry, you can't trap birds except in live traps, so you can't kill them? So, I mean, I do think we have an established way of trapping animals and an established way of killing birds, which in most cases is used with a shotgun or rifle. Now, I don't know how you make it more highly controlled than that. I mean, you could put people through shooting tests to see whether they can point a rifle in the right direction, but every time you fire a rifle or a shotgun, you are aiming to kill the thing that you are firing at, you're not aiming to make it suffer. So, I'm not sure how the amendment 138 helps, and as far as amendment 139, it does actually beg the question, how much do you want to micromanage the control of predators? I.e., do you want to suggest how you do it and when you do it? I.e., you can only put a trap in this ditch, in this box, as covered by the Springtrap legislation, and you can only do it at a certain time if you're on a particular moor or bit of ground, which is subject to a management plan. I just don't see how it works. So, I would take an intervention on that. Is anyone actually saying that the only way we can manage wildlife and manager land is through killing animals? Is that his argument? I didn't hear that. Is he actually arguing that the only way to manage land, for example, whether it's to protect a particular species against predators, the only way you can do that is by killing? Is that what he's arguing? The point in my amendments is that you should consider other forms of control before you use killing as a last resort, but he seems to be arguing that the only thing that he can do is kill. I thank Mr Smith for that intervention, but I would make the point that, in most cases, the reason why you are controlling that predator is to allow other species to flourish. I'm not sure if Mr Smith, by his amendment, is suggesting that you trap an animal and release it somewhere else, because I fear that to take an animal from one location to another location would require a licence. Are you suggesting licensing of the moving of predator species from one place to another? I'm not sure that's what the Minister would like to see, or is, in fact, entirely reasonable. On that note, convener, I'm happy to conclude my remarks. Thank you, Mr Smith. At this point, I want to indicate that there was a suggestion that we would try and finish this first session at 1 o'clock, but I'm minded to carry on until 1.45 at the latest, so what will continue to be a concern in the amendments at this time? I understand the time pressures. I have a committee meeting, which I need to prepare for, because I only got the committee meeting papers. I think that it was five to eight last night. I think that extending this now into this session will jeopardise my position as convener of another committee or to speak to my amendment, so I would ask respectfully that you may reconsider that, or just for shortening it by a bit. We intend to finish at 1.45, which should be before your committee reconvenes and also gives people time to prepare for the questions this afternoon, but I'm going to press on. We may finish before 1.45, but I was just to let everybody know that we indicated that we would expect to finish by 1, but the way we've made progress, I think that we need to try and push on a little bit, but I'll take on board your comments. Based on your time and your suggestion, we get to the section on mureburn licences purposes during that 45 minutes, no? No. It wouldn't be my intention if we are quick enough to actually go into the mureburn licences section of the bell. Jamie Halcro Johnston Thank you, convener. I'll be very quick then. It's just in relation and follow-up to Edward Mountain's comments and in relation to amendments 138 and 139, methods for taking your killing-wide words are legal and already adhere to the high standards of animal welfare. This amendment, these amendments risk sowing confusion and ambiguity for no discernable public benefit. Given the significant and immediate consequences of failing to comply with what will be a statutory code of practice, it follows that the contents must provide absolute legal certainty, leaving no room for confusion. Trapping infrastructure employed on grass mords is already complied with international agreement on humane trapping standards. Member, it has been clear all along that medical aid to grip was always going to be part of a code of practice, as this was one of the areas that was considered by the medical review and they recommended that the Scottish Government should publish a code of practice, which is now in train. There's always the intention of the Scottish Government to intention that guidance on the use of medical aid would be included in the code of practice as the Grousmer Management Bill has developed. I understand the intention based on the recommendations from Warrisee Minister. However, just in the context of the code of practice being related to disturbance of wild animals, wild birds and wild plants, I'm just wondering how that relates in adding medicated grit to the code of practice. Medicated grit was part of the things that were a review looked at. There are some people who would like us to remove medicated grit entirely. There's a very big campaign going on to do that, but we believe that the balance in making sure that Grousmers can function as Grousmers, having medicated grit in the code of practice, is helpful to all parties. How does it help disturbance of wild animals, wild birds and wild plants? Could you clarify your point, please? The code of practice is all about ensuring that those specific species are protected and not disturbed. I'm just wondering how adding it... The code of practice is to ensure good quality Grousmer management, and that will be part of that code of practice. It's therefore helpful to have made clear in the bill that I'm happy to support amendment 8c and encourage committee members to vote for it. Amendment 138 and 139 from Colin Smyth. I thank Colin for these amendments and understand the intentions behind them. However, I won't support them. As the previous minister set out in her letter to the committee on 18 January, NatureScot is taking an iterative, collaborative approach to the code of practice for Grousmer management, and a code working group comprising a range of stakeholders has already been established to develop the structure and content of that code. The code will include guidance on wildlife management that will set out statutory requirements that people undertaking wildlife management must comply with, as well as providing advice about best practice. I think it's important that they find their details about what is included in the code taken forward and informed by the Grousmer management code group, and that wide range of experience and voice within the group offers so that we can get a workable but also a robust code. Therefore, we need to give the code working group space to determine what in particular will be promoted as best practice, and we should not be too prescriptive about what we set out in the face of the bill. Therefore, I will not support this amendment and encourage members to vote against it. Amendment 20, from Edward Mountain, is an unnecessary amendment, as the bill has drafted, requires Scottish ministers to consult on the code of practice for Grousmer management. Should the Scottish ministers exercise their powers to delegate the preparation of the Grousmer management code of practice to NatureScot, NatureScot would then be required to adhere to any consultation requirements set out in the section of the bill. I therefore hope that this reassures Edward Mountain that he will not press his amendment if he does. I encourage members to vote against it. I will be really, really quick. I am pleased that the minister gave me the time to deal with this as it was originally his amendment, and I encourage members to vote for amendment 83. The question is that amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 138, in the name of Colin Smyth,已 debated with, lockdown. Amendment 139, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with, amendment 19, in the name of Edward Mountain, is already about to be Voluntaryau rule. The question is amendment 19. The question is, does amendment 19 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a division. Those supporting amendments please raise your hand now. Those opposing amendment number number number number three are on Edward Mountain. I'll rerun the vote. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. We are not. There will be a division. Those supporting amendment number number number three are now. Those against amendments. Those abstaining. The result of the vote is 2, 4, 7 against the amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 84. In my name, Finlay Carson, already debated with amendment 78, to move or not move, I move. The question is that amendment 84 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those against the amendment, those abstaining. The result of the vote is 4, 4, 5 against the amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 20 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 83. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those against the amendment, those abstaining. The result of the vote is 3, 4, 6 against the amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 85 in the name of Jim Fairlie, grouped with amendments 85B, 85C and 87. Emma Harper, to move amendment 85 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 85 in the name of Jim Fairlie, who is now our minister. As the stage 1 report indicated, monitoring the reporting requirements must be balanced against any resources the Scottish Government and its agencies and the wider interest groups take to carry out the monitoring. In the previous minister's response to the stage 1 report, the minister stated that the Scottish Government is committed to an open and transparent approach to legislation and where additional reporting serves a useful purpose, the Scottish Government has said that it is happy to support it, which I welcome. Amendments 85, 86 and 87 require monitoring of section 16AE licences and the effect of those licences. Part of the reason for this bill is to address raptor persecution on land managed for grouse shooting and the section 16AE licencing provisions is how the Scottish Government want to do so. The word to review stated that the three raptor species populations were identified by a significantly impacted by criminal activities on some grouse moors. Three raptor species are the golden eagle of which there has been criminal investigations into persecution in my South Scotland region, henharrier and peregrine falcon. To assess the effectiveness of the bill in reducing raptor persecution on these raptor species, regular monitoring and surveillance of their populations is essential. I acknowledge the Scottish Government's commitment to doing so. When Gillian Martin was the minister, she stated that some monitoring of raptor populations is already undertaken by the Scottish Raptor Study Group, and my office has been in contact with them ahead of this consideration. I therefore strongly believe, based on the evidence that the committee has taken, that the requirements to undertake raptor population assessments is important. Given those important amendments regarding monitoring, I would welcome the minister's comments, and I leave it there, convener, ahead of minister's comments. I call on Rachael Hamilton to move amendment 85b and speak to all other amendments in this group. Thank you, convener, and I move amendment 85b in my name. In monitoring the effectiveness of section 16Aa licence, it is important that any summary in relation to relevant offensive is not speculative, so a conclusion is not formed by the basis of incomplete information. The reference to suspected offences is not an appropriate metric in that regard. Offences are either proven by way of conviction or not proven, and this amendment ensures that only proven offences are reflected in any summary report. 85c is a minor amendment that provides consistency in respect of language and phrasing used elsewhere in the bill. There really is an unusual situation where I must now address amendments as the lead minister for the bill, and I thank Emma Harper for speaking to all the previous lodged amendments on my behalf. In my new position as Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, I have received a great deal of advice on all of the amendments to the bill, combined with all of the evidence that I have heard from stakeholders at stage 1 as part of this committee. I have tried to use all of that new advice to better understand the bill and all of the concerns and issues that surround it. I originally lodged amendments 85, 86 and 87 for the reasons that Emma Harper has set out, and I think that those reasons still hold. However, this is an example of how my understanding has developed. I can see now that there are ways I can improve those amendments to make sure that we are getting the most out of any reporting requirements that we include in the bill. Reporting requirements must be weighed up to the balance of the value that they provide against the resources that they take to fulfil. That being said, the Scottish Government is committed to an open and transparent approach to legislation, and when additional reporting serves a useful purpose, then it should be supported. The bill has been introduced in part to address raptor persecution on land-managed ground shooting, and the section licensing provisions in the bill is the approach taken to do so. The three raptor species populations identified in the very review as significantly impacted, as Emma Harper has said, the Golden Eagle, Hen, Harry and Perrigan falcon. It has assessed the effectiveness of the bill on reducing raptor persecution on these species. Regular monitoring and surveillance of their populations will be essential. Some monitoring of this kind is already undertaken by the Scottish raptor study group, albeit at longer intervals than provided for in these amendments. I think that including a requirement to undertake an assessment of raptor populations is a reasonable suggestion. However, I would like to do what I think would be helpful is to discuss the requirements further with NatureScot and its relevant stakeholders to understand their ability to undertake the additional monitoring and reporting. I would also like to ensure that those amendments are framed in a way that is consistent with language used in the rest of the bill. I therefore request Emma Harper not to press 85, 86 and 87 today and allow me to have these discussions and bring back a better version of this at stage 3. Emma Harper to wind up on amendment 85. Thanks, convener. Based on what Mr Fairleys said, given that the Government would like time to ensure that the amendments are workable and doable within the current resources, I am happy not to press these amendments because I would be keen for the minister to work with NatureScotland and others to make sure that we have appropriate discussions and potentially bring back redrafted versions at stage 3. I am happy to not to press. Rachael Hamilton to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 85b. The question is that amendment 85b be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a division. Those supporting amendment, raise your hand now. Those against. Those members abstaining. The result of the vote is too far, seven against, the amendment therefore has not been agreed. Emma Harper to press or withdraw amendment 85. The question is that amendment 85b be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a division. Those in support of the amendment, raise your hand now. Those against. Those members abstaining. The result of the vote is too far, seven against, the amendment has not been agreed. Emma Harper to press or withdraw amendment 85. I call amendment 69, in the name of the minister. I already debated with amendment 59, minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 86, in the name of Jim Fairlie, I already debated with amendment 85. Emma Harper to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 173, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, I already debated with amendment 179. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 173 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a division. Those in support of the amendment, raise your hand now. Those against the amendment. Those members wish to abstain. The result of the vote is too far, seven against, the amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 70, in the name of the minister. I already debated with amendment 59, minister to move formally. Moved. And the question is that amendment 70 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 140, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. I already debated with amendment 179, Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 140 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a division. Those in support of the amendment, raise your hand now. Those against, those members abstaining. The result of the vote is too far, seven against, the amendment therefore is not agreed. I call amendment 87, in the name of Jim Fairlie, I already debated with amendment 85. Emma Harper to move or not move? Not move. The question is that section 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 71, in the name of the minister, group with amendments 21, 141 and 142. The minister to move amendment 71 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 71. Gillian Martin's amendment 71 modifies the animal health and welfare Scotland act 2006 to confer additional powers on inspectors appointed by the Scottish ministers to investigate certain wildlife offences. I'm aware that the issue of giving additional powers to the SSPC inspectors has been debated in this Parliament on a number of occasions. That's why the Scottish Government decides to set up an independent task force to look further at this matter. After Kirsten listening to stakeholders developed the proposals, they were consulted on last year and 71 per cent of the respondents agreed with the proposals to extend the powers of the Scottish SPCA to investigate wildlife crime, but two thirds also agreed with proposals to place limitations and conditions on the extended powers of the SSP inspectors. Notwithstanding this level of support, I know that some have raised concerns about giving further powers to individuals and organisations, which are not part of the police service. On the other side of the argument, some would have liked the Government to go significantly further in terms of the new powers for the Scottish SPCA. Having listened carefully the evidence that has been presented to this committee, I believe that the provision set out in this amendment provides for a small extension of powers to deal with a gap in the arrangements for securing evidence of potential criminality strike the right balance. An example of those powers and use as the law currently stands, a Scottish SPCA inspector responding to a case of a live animal caught in an illegally set trap is not able to seize any other illegal traps in the immediate vicinity which do not contain live animals. He would also not have the power to search the area for evidence of other illegally set traps. If voted in, this amendment would mean that in these circumstances an inspector would have the power to seize the illegally set traps and search for evidence of other illegally set traps in the vicinity. They will then turn over their evidence to Police Scotland. The Police Scotland will retain primacy over investigation of wildlife crime cases, including the offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in this bill. The additional powers for inspectors will come with a number of safeguards and limitations. They can only be exercised when an inspector is already responding to a case under their existing powers. As is currently the case, each inspector will be appointed separately and individually by the Scottish Government. All inspectors will be required to undertake training prior to being given authorization to exercise the new powers and authorization can be withdrawn at any time at the discretion of the Scottish Government. Protocalls will be established when the SSPCA and Police Scotland to ensure an effective partnership working and to clearly set out the role of Scottish SSPCA within the limit of these powers and the SSPCA will not be given powers to stop and search people and they will also not have the powers to arrest people if suspected of committing a wildlife crime. The pro-calls for partnership working with the Scottish SSPCA will follow when using these new powers and will clearly set out how the new functions should work. This will include what report mechanisms will be in place and how the SSPCA National Wildlife Crime Unit, Police Scotland and Crown Office will work together effectively and what the individual roles and responsibilities of each party are. There was much discussion in the committee's sessions regarding the evidence around when the protocol would be established, as the minister well knows. Is there any indication when this protocol will be established? Obviously, it is important for us to understand what those protocols are. Obviously, there are long-standing concerns around giving the SSPCA powers. The investigation powers should be really with Police Scotland, so there was some consideration of concern around that. Okay, you have jumped in just a second too quickly. Further, those provisions will not be commenced until the protocols have been agreed by all relevant parties, including Scottish ministers. The extent to investigate the powers under the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act and the Scottish SSPCA are only able to utilise their powers in relation to the investigation of cases involving live animals. That will remain the case with the new powers. If a situation were to arise, for example, where the respondent to a call relating to a live animal caught in a trap and then an arrival found that the animal had subsequently died, I would expect them to alert Police Scotland, who would then determine the appropriate course of action. I would also expect that situations such as this will be clearly covered by the protocols, which will set out how the Scottish SSPCA will operate using those new powers. Amendment 21, in the name of Edward Mountain, would remove section 8 of the Bill. Section 8 of the Bill is currently an enabling power that provides the Scottish ministers made by regulation, modify the 2006 act in order to add powers such as those that I have just described. The intention was always to seek to improve the provision by amendment at stage 2 and replace it with the provision that set out the detail and limits of the new powers on the face of the Bill, and that is what amendment 71 now does. If amendment 71 gets the support of the committee as it is voted in, then Edward Mountain's amendment 21 would immediately remove those new provisions. However, in the event that 71 is not voted in, I would think that it would be sensible to retain section 8 as it would enable the Scottish ministers to bring forward regulations to extend the Scottish powers of the SSPCA inspectors at a later stage should that be desirable. Those regulations will be subject to affirmative procedure, and so, if ever used, Parliament would have to get a say. I will therefore not be sporting Edward Mountain's amendment 21 and would urge committee members to vote against it. I think that the road of grants amendments that would require Scottish ministers to undertake a review of the effect of those new provisions are a helpful addition. I would hope that the requirements to undertake such a review would help to allay some of the concerns that were raised at stage 1 about how those new powers would be used. I therefore support those amendments in principle. However, I do think that the review period of one year as set out in the amendments would be an appropriate timescale. Amendment 141 requires the review to examine whether to exercise of those new powers as result in convictions. Given the time that it can take for an investigation to proceed through the criminal justice system, I think that a longer review period of three to five years would probably be more appropriate. More generally, there are also some minor issues with those amendments that I would like to work with the member to address. Therefore, I ask the road of grant not to press either amendment at this stage and I will consider them further to bring back a revised version at stage 3. On behalf of Gillian Martin, I move amendment 71 and I would encourage committee members to support it. Colin, Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 21 and other amendments in this group. Thank you very much, convener. Of course, the beauty of submitting an amendment early is the fact that it comes early on the sheet and you don't have sight of the minister's amendment, which happened just prior to the closing of when amendments could be lodged. So, we kind of agreed with ourselves at the outset that we wanted to remove section 8, but that's as far as it went. My amendment for removing section 8 was because I have very deep felt concerns that section 8, as amended, will give powers to people that have never had those powers before. I personally am a great believer in the respect that we should have to our police force and that it should be them that are implementing the law, not other people. I've always believed that. Therefore, I'm concerned that the powers that are going to be given to these inspectors actually give them more powers than a policeman has. There is no need for a search warrant. There is no need for corroboration. There is no specified training at this site and no specified warrant. So, how one can identify whether the person who turns up is trained and authorised is almost impossible to do. There is little or no training on pesticides, which means that that issue of collecting evidence on pesticides is difficult. The way that that is got round at the moment, as I'm sure the minister will know, is that when an inspection is carried out by the police, a member of the department, the cultural department, attends with the police to be able to identify and inform on pesticides. So, I have real concerns about this section because I don't think it clarifies all the issues that we need clarified. It removes powers and undermines the authority of the police, which I frankly am against, and gives powers to a third party, which I don't believe, in my opinion, minister, are qualified to do that and nor have the legal training to do so. I call on Rhoda Grant to speak to amendment 141 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I'm really glad that the minister has heard concerns about this part of the bill. I clearly understand the frustration felt by SSPC officers who are called out because of animal welfare concerns and they see illegal activities and there's nothing at all they can do, but there are also concerns about empowering a third sector organisation to provide law enforcement. My amendments were put in place to make sure that this is looked at and we make sure that there are no unintended consequences, but I've heard what the minister said about looking at this for stage 3 and I'm pleased to do that and won't move those amendments because of that and look forward to those discussions. Thank you. I'm delighted to put on record my support for amendment 71, which will extend the SSPC powers to investigate wildlife crime. This is something Scottish Greens have long been calling for and that is why we included a timely review of the SSPC powers in the Bute House agreement. During stage 1, we heard evidence on several occasions of cases where an animal welfare officer is limited in what they can do to collect evidence of wildlife crime. The extension of SSPC powers expands our ability to bring more of those perpetuating wildlife crime to justice and protect the reputations of those businesses that do abide by the law. Thank you minister to wind up. I'm welcome to debate around this group and it's a big step for us to take and it's right, we consider it carefully. I do think that we've got the balance right and we have the checks and safeguards in place that will ensure the protocol between the SSPC and Police Scotland is right, so therefore I would think that we're in the right place with this one. Thank you. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those opposing the amendment. Those members abstaining. The result of the vote is 742 against the amendment that has therefore been agreed. I call amendment 21 in the name of Edward Mountain already debated with amendment 71. Edward Mountain to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment please raise your hand now. Those against. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 141 in the name of Rhoda Grant already debated with amendment 71. Rhoda Grant to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 142 in the name of Rhoda Grant already debated with amendment 71. Rhoda Grant to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 75 in the name of Rachel Hamilton already debated with amendment 53. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 75 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment raise your hand now. Those against. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. At that point, we will suspend this consideration until 6 p.m. this evening.