Rural Affairs and Islands
Good afternoon. I remind members that Covid measures are in place and that face masks should be worn while moving around the chamber and the wider Holyrood campus.
The next item of business is questions on the rural affairs and islands portfolio. If members wish to ask a question, they should press their request-to-speak button or put an R in the chat function during the relevant question. There is quite a bit of interest in this item of business, so I make the usual plea for succinct questions and answers to match.
Dog Welfare
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to promote the welfare of dogs. (S6O-00804)
We have taken a number of significant steps over the past few years to promote the welfare of dogs, including the introduction of new animal licensing regulations, stronger maximum penalties for the most serious animal welfare offences and Finn’s law to provide additional protection for police dogs. Following the granting of legislative consent for the relevant part of the United Kingdom Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, we continue to work with other Administrations on proposals to restrict the number of puppies that can be imported in one vehicle and to prevent the importation of puppies aged under six months, heavily pregnant females or dogs that have had their ears cropped or that have been subject to other mutilations that would be illegal in the UK.
We also have a programme for government commitment to consult on extending licensing legislation to animal care services, which could include dog training, walking and grooming services.
Stealing a dog can affect the wellbeing of both the animal and the owner. It is not just a criminal justice matter; it is also an animal welfare issue. Unfortunately, the law currently regards stealing a dog as stealing an object. Does the cabinet secretary understand why I, animal welfare organisations and others are calling for the welfare impact of dog theft to be recognised in law?
I absolutely appreciate the points that the member has made, and I know that he and others are very passionate about the issue. Theft of a dog is a very serious matter, which I know can cause owners real anxiety and upset. It is only right that the criminal justice system is able to deal effectively with perpetrators of dog theft.
As the member alluded to, theft is a common-law offence in Scotland, with penalties up to life imprisonment available, and courts will take into account the circumstances of any theft when sentencing, including if a loved family pet has been stolen. Dogs and other pets are not, of course, the same as inanimate objects and, when the theft of a pet occurs, it can cause significant upset.
I appreciate the work and action that the member is looking to undertake in this regard and I would be more than happy to meet him to discuss his proposals further.
I have four supplementary questions and I want to take all of them, so I again make a plea for brief questions and brief answers.
I feel favourably towards Maurice Golden’s proposal for a bill, and I hope that he will reciprocate the feeling towards my proposed bill.
The cabinet secretary is aware of my Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill, which fell last session due to pressure on parliamentary time. The bill’s aim was to deter prospective owners from purchasing dogs online and from the horrible puppy factory farms.
Without wishing to ambush her, I ask the cabinet secretary whether the Scottish Government will look favourably on my proposed bill, which I will launch shortly?
I appreciate the member’s question. I know that she has worked on the issue for a long time. It is a matter that she is very passionate about, as are other members across the chamber. The Scottish Government of course welcomes any proposal that seeks to improve animal welfare. We will of course carefully consider the contents of Christine Grahame’s forthcoming bill, and I really look forward to discussing the measures that will be set out in it in due course.
On the issue of animal welfare, why does the cabinet secretary think that hunting with a full pack of dogs is suddenly not cruel, just because a hunt has a licence?
My colleague the Minister for Environment and Land Reform is working on that matter. As the member will know, there has been a consultation on the proposals, which will be brought forward in due course. I will be happy to have the minister follow up with the member.
The Greyhound Board of Great Britain has finally released injury data from greyhound racing at Shawfield, which reveal that injuries in 2020 doubled in comparison with 2018. Given the growing evidence of the systematic abuse of greyhounds, including doping, does the cabinet secretary agree that it is time to explore all options for further regulation of that brutal industry?
We do not have plans to ban the racing of greyhounds in Scotland, but we would consider any recommendations that the Scottish animal welfare commission may make on greyhound welfare in due course.
We consider that the provisions of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, as amended, are sufficient to ensure that action can be taken if the welfare requirements for greyhounds, whether they are still racing or retired, are not being met. The provisions in part 2 of the 2006 act apply to all people who are responsible for animals, including breeders, trainers and owners of racing greyhounds.
What more can the Scottish Government do to ensure the safety of latchkey dogs, which are dogs that are able to escape from private gardens? They can, in some cases, be responsible for livestock worrying, which is of particular relevance in rural and island communities at this time of year.
In that regard, I highlight microchipping, which is an effective method for identifying animals and can help to reunite dogs with owners, where a dog has been lost or stolen. This Government made it compulsory for all dogs to be microchipped and for contact details to be kept up to date, which helps to ensure the swift return of lost dogs. It is standard practice for enforcement agencies to scan all dogs that come into their care. I am happy to follow up with the member on the particular issues that she has raised.
Food Production
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the comments of National Farmers Union president Minette Batters, who stated that the UK Government is “focused on anything other than domestic food production”. (S6O-00805)
The Scottish Government recognises the importance of domestic food production, in particular in these uncertain times. We also recognise the huge challenges that our farmers and crofters face in producing our food, given the rising costs as a result of supply issues and the overall impact of Brexit on the agricultural sector.
We know, therefore, how important it is for the industry that support is maintained. That provides vital stability and certainty, which is why we will not remove direct payments, and why we have committed to maintain basic payments at current levels for the duration of the current parliamentary session.
That does not appear to be the Tories’ approach in England, so I can understand the NFU president’s frustration in that regard. Given how little George Eustice or any of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ministers ever want to talk about food production or food security with me or with any of the other devolved Government ministers, I absolutely share that frustration.
I note that the Scottish National Party Government has a strong commitment to active farming and food production. Nevertheless, given the recent comments of the chief executive of Scotland Food & Drink on the additional costs, complexity and risks that Brexit has put on food and drink businesses that are looking to do business with the European Union, does the minister share my concerns that small businesses may, in effect, give up their trade with the EU as a result of the additional red tape?
I share that concern, which is very real. As a result of the UK’s bad Brexit deal, Scottish food and drink businesses now have to comply with a whole range of non-tariff measures including export health certificates and customs declarations, which can, as we know, include burdensome paperwork and a range of additional and increased costs, if they want to export to the EU.
The Scottish Government repeatedly warned the UK Government of the damage that would be caused by EU exit, which was astonishingly and recklessly pursued during the pandemic. Some businesses are now struggling to export goods to existing customers in the EU or have completely lost that trade altogether. Those are the inevitable consequences of the UK Government’s decision to take us out of the customs union and single market, thereby agreeing to the imposition of third-country treatment in customs and regulatory terms. It is important to remember that in the first nine months of last year, Scotland’s food exports to the EU fell by 10 per cent in comparison with the same period in 2019. The impact could therefore not be more stark.
The Scottish Government’s vision for the future of food production and farming, which was published yesterday, is thin on detail. On page 5, it states:
“emissions from agriculture are still too high; we are still not managing to do simple, obvious things”.
Blaming farmers for food production emissions is a cop-out. Even Scotland Food & Drink’s document, “Ambition 2030—A growth strategy for farming, fishing, food and drink”, mentions climate change only once. Why has the Government failed to do “obvious things”—as it calls them—such as providing proper funding to farmers and a meaningful, fleshed-out plan?
It is a bit rich of the Scottish Tories to talk about proper funding when we are the Government that is committed to maintaining funding for our farmers, and to supporting food production and direct payments.
I refute the accusation that the Government is blaming farmers. That is absolutely not what we are doing. We recognise that emissions are too high. That is why we are supporting our farmers and crofters to lower their emissions and to do what they can to enhance biodiversity. That is part of the vision that we set out and will also form part of the proposals that we will bring forward in an agriculture bill next year.
We must apply more pressure on the UK Government to change its approach to the seasonal workers programme. It is having a devastating effect on farms in my constituency, which have shrunk in the last year. Last year we had rotten fruit and vegetables in the fields; we will not even have the plants this year, because we do not have the workers.
What discussions has the minister had with the UK minister about that? Is she hopeful that the UK Government will change its approach?
Willie Rennie raises a vitally important point. We are acutely aware of the concerns about the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. It is particularly frustrating that the announcement about the scheme was made on Christmas Eve, with no warning to, or discussion with, the devolved Administrations.
We have a frustration with the UK Government. We have monthly meetings with it and with the other devolved Administrations to talk about common issues. We have continually raised the importance of migration. We have sought meetings with Home Office ministers in an attempt to discuss that. Despite asking for that every month and following that up with letters in between meetings, we are yet to see any meeting take place, which is really frustrating and disappointing when we are willing to work constructively with the UK Government to find solutions to those problems.
We have suggested a number of changes that could be made and I have also brought forward proposals for rural visa pilots. Unfortunately, we can only go so far when one partner is willing to engage in the discussion but the other is unwilling to do so. We continue to try.
Question 3 has been withdrawn.
Dairy Farmers (Supply Chain Sustainability and Fairness)
To ask the Scottish Government what support it will provide to dairy farmers to promote sustainability and fairness in the supply chain. (S6O-00807)
The Scottish Government is absolutely committed to supporting our dairy farmers to farm now and into the future. We have ensured that dairy farmers are able to access support that is similar to what they had under the common agricultural policy before Brexit, such as the basic payment scheme and the greening payment. Sustainability is one of the key features of the Scottish dairy strategy, which was launched in February last year.
We are also working on the introduction of mandatory written contracts in the dairy sector, providing more transparency and fairness to the sector. I hope that more dairy farmers will also consider converting to organic and contributing to our plan to double the amount of agricultural land in organic production.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of recent negative press that targeted the dairy industry as a whole. Does she agree that Scottish dairy farms operate to some of the highest welfare standards, due to the robust and comprehensive legal frameworks protecting animal welfare? Recognising that many of our dairy farmers are losing or making very little money, does she agree that the value of provenance of milk is underestimated in the food supply chain? What support can be given to dairy farmers to assist them in working towards sustainable and regenerative farming, perhaps with an incentive to focus on school milk provision?
I absolutely agree with what the member says. I have visited a number of dairy farms in Scotland and do not recognise the recent portrayal of daily farming as having any relationship with what happens here in Scotland. We have robust legislation to protect animal welfare and to enable our farmers to operate to the highest standards, which they do.
We want to see our dairy sector thrive in the future. Through the dairy growth board, domestic and international markets are scanned for those looking to increase trade and retail opportunities and to supply our high-quality milk to the making of value-added products such as cheese.
We also want to see more of our products placed in the public sector, such as in schools. I know that the member will be acutely aware of the work of a place that she has previously mentioned in the chamber, Mossgeil organic farm. The farm now supplies all the schools in East Ayrshire. We want to see more of that, through our food for life programme.
As I have mentioned Mossgeil organic farm, I take the opportunity to commend the people there for the work that they have done recently in relation to the war in Ukraine. They made an appeal for donations. I visited them on Monday to see the work that they are undertaking. They have made a huge effort to help Ukraine. I take the opportunity to commend Bryce Cunningham and Mossgeil organic farm for all the work that they have done, and continue to do, in supporting that effort.
Agriculture (Gene Editing)
To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with European Union Governments regarding the use of gene editing in agriculture. (S6O-00808)
Although there have been no recent discussions with EU Governments regarding the use of gene editing in agriculture, I am aware that there is on-going consideration at EU level of novel genomic techniques, including gene editing, and how those relate to existing legislation on genetic modification. The Scottish Government’s policy is to stay aligned, where practicable, with the EU, and we are closely monitoring the EU’s position on that issue.
Gene editing—which, of course, is not genetic modification—is backed by Scottish farmers and has been shown to have benefits for them, animals and consumers. However, trials have now been given the go-ahead in England, so our farmers are in danger of being left behind, commercially and competitively, because this Government will not permit gene editing in Scotland. NFU Scotland recently expressed support for trials in Scotland and Professor Bruce Whitelaw of the Roslin Institute has come out as a strong advocate. Therefore, will the cabinet secretary listen to the experts, put aside dogmatic adherence to EU rules and give the green light to trials of gene editing in Scotland?
Of course, we continue to listen and, as I have already said, Scotland’s policy on genetically modified organisms has not changed. We remain opposed to the use of GM in farming, in order to protect the clean and green brand of Scotland’s £15 billion food and drink industry. We are absolutely aware of the plans for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to review the English regulatory definitions of a genetically modified organism in order to exclude those organisms that have been produced by gene editing and other genetic technologies if they could have been developed by traditional breeding. We are considering the implications for Scotland and we will continue to engage with DEFRA and the Welsh and Northern Irish Governments to ensure that devolved competences are respected.
As someone who eagerly desires to see Scotland become a good food nation and whose constituency is rich in some of the best produce that we could hope to find anywhere, I wonder whether the cabinet secretary shares my view that we must engage with that subject very carefully, in order to ensure that we do not undermine public confidence in the high standards of Scotland’s agricultural sector and the quality of our produce.
Yes, I very much share that view because, as I previously mentioned, Scotland’s policy on GMOs has not changed. We know that DEFRA is clear that it wants to make changes, and we have to make sure that changes that are made by DEFRA and the UK Government do not impact on Scotland. We are in discussion with DEFRA to ensure that a GMO-free Scotland is not compromised.
Regional Land Use Partnerships (Funding)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with the land reform minister regarding the future funding of regional land use partnerships. (S6O-00809)
I am in regular discussion with the Minister for Environment and Land Reform on regional land use partnership pilots, which are funded from the net zero, energy and transport portfolio budget. The pilots aim to test approaches that facilitate collaboration at a regional level. They are looking to take a natural capital approach to maximising the contribution that our land managers make in addressing the climate and environmental crises. We have provided some resource funding this financial year to support pilot establishment and will continue to fund them next year. Findings from the pilots will inform decision making on future development and funding.
RLUPs, including those in Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders, help national and local government, communities, landowners and stakeholders to work together to find ways to optimise land use in a fair and inclusive way, as well as meeting objectives in supporting our net zero journey. Can the cabinet secretary provide any further information on how the pilot projects have worked? She has already answered the second part of my question by telling us that future funding will continue, and I thank her for that.
Last year, we announced that we would support five pilot RLUPs to establish themselves and, subsequently, develop regional land use frameworks by the end of 2023. The pilots are presently at too early a stage in their development to be fully assessed on that work but, should the pilots prove successful, we have committed in our programme for government to develop plans for a second phase, as of next year. However, RLUPs, as I previously intimated, are taking a natural, capital-led approach to the development of the frameworks. Again, we hope to have them in place next year and take forward further development from there.
Farming (Innovation and Technology)
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that farms are at the cutting edge of innovation and technology. (S6O-00810)
Our vision for Scottish agriculture includes an undertaking to work with industry to improve business resilience, efficiency and productivity through greater deployment of innovation and technology. Through our strategic research programme, we offer in excess of £46 million each year to ensure that we remain at the cutting edge of innovation and technology. Additionally, we continue to deliver our commitment to develop vertical farming ambitions, support precision farming, through the sustainable agricultural capital grant scheme, and offer a test bed for innovation projects, through the knowledge transfer and innovation fund.
Cutting edge, but apparently fairly ignorant of what gene editing is. It really is despairing to think about the quality of advice that the cabinet secretary must be getting on gene editing when it is as plain as daylight what benefits it can bring.
Setting aside any Scottish National Party fetish about the European Union, what assessment has the minister made of the economic impact of continuing her ban on gene editing of crops? When was the last review undertaken? What did it conclude about the effect that the ban is having on Scottish farming’s international competitiveness? Will she publish the advice that she is receiving?
As I said in response to another question, Scotland’s policy on genetically modified organisms has not changed and it will not change, because we remain opposed to the use of genetic modification in farming. Ultimately, that position protects the clean, green brand of Scotland’s £15 billion food and drink industry.
When it comes to gene editing, as I have already stated in response to the previous question, we are continuing to monitor the situation and follow it closely.
A highly innovative sector of agriculture is seed potato farming. I would like to hear the cabinet secretary’s response to the United Kingdom Government potentially striking a Canada-style deal with the EU. Does she recognise that it is wholly inadequate to repair the damage that a hard Brexit has done to a highly valued part of Scotland’s agricultural sector, not least in the north-east?
That is at the margins of relevance, but respond to it briefly, please, cabinet secretary.
I absolutely share Gillian Martin’s view on that issue, which is particularly relevant for the north-east and the potato industry there.
I continue to be extremely disappointed by the UK Government’s lack of progress on that and on securing an equivalent agreement with the EU. The loss of the EU and Northern Ireland markets happened quite literally overnight, and it has been a significant blow to the sector. To be clear, that is a direct result of the UK Government’s choice to pursue a hard Brexit and its lack of commitment to dynamic alignment with the EU. The Scottish Government has been pressing, and will continue to press, the UK Government to seek an urgent resolution to the EU decision.
Fishing (Firth of Clyde)
To ask the Scottish Government how the 2022 regulations on the prohibition of fishing in the Firth of Clyde will impact fishing businesses. (S6O-00811)
The Scottish Government has continued seasonal Clyde cod spawning closure for 2022 and 2023, from February to April, without exemptions. However, the closure has been adjusted to make it more targeted and focused. We believe that that measure will provide a higher chance of stock recovery and contribute to a more sustainable fishery in the west of Scotland.
For 11 weeks, fishers are not allowed to fish in key spawning grounds for cod, and that is crucial for the long-term sustainability of the stock. Despite the seasonal closure having been in place since 2001, the stock has shown very little sign of recovery. Responsible fisheries management means ensuring that we get the right balance between socioeconomic and environmental outcomes. In this case, we have done that by ensuring that there are the right protections for spawning cod while also ensuring that some fishing can continue to take place in surrounding areas.
I hear what the cabinet secretary says, but I wonder whether she heard Elaine Whyte, who spoke powerfully yesterday on behalf of the Clyde Fishermen’s Association to the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee. Ms Whyte made clear that the Firth of Clyde closures have left many fishermen with no other option, frankly, than to find alternative work. That is, of course, causing unbelievable stress, as many of them have fishing as a lifetime career. Furthermore, she is concerned that this might lead to us having no fishermen left in the area, and that the Clyde coast will end up being a forgotten coast in terms of fishing.
Will the cabinet secretary agree to listen to the industry, and will she outline compensation plans to support those who have been affected by this peremptory closure? Will she perhaps give a guarantee that, in future, she will consult the industry before taking such important measures that have such a profound impact on the industry?
I would just like to say that we are committed to listening to industry, and that is part of the process that led to the decision that was taken. We took a pragmatic and scientific approach to protect the areas where cod are spawning and, as a result, we ended up reducing the overall size of the area. That means that we have the protections in place at the same time that more fishing activity is enabled to continue. In line with Scottish Government policy, we will not be providing financial compensation for areas closed in order to protect fish spawning such as those in the Firth of Clyde. That is consistent with the approach that has been taken in respect of similar management measures including the national cod avoidance plan and marine protected areas.
Will the cabinet secretary advise members how Firth of Clyde fishing businesses will ultimately benefit from an increase in the tonnage of fish that they will be able to catch in future years through the conservation that is being introduced by the Scottish Government and will she touch on the benefits to the marine environment?
The closure is specifically aimed at protecting spawning cod, to help them to produce more eggs and hence larvae, and eventually more adult fish. If they are not protected, they will not lay the eggs to begin with and the biomass will certainly not improve. Introducing such measures gives a higher chance of stock recovery for fish stocks on the west coast and it will ultimately benefit people who make a direct living from the sea, onshore support businesses and the wider Clyde fishing community. An increase in the availability of fish will also help to reduce reliance on key shellfish species and open up opportunities for some businesses to diversify.
That concludes portfolio question time. There will be a brief pause before the next item of business.