Chamber and committees

Thank you, convener. I apologise for not being with you in person. I was attending the opening ceremony of the spaceport in Shetland yesterday, and logistics would not allow me to get to you in person. I suspect that it will be the only spaceport opening that I will be at in my lifetime.

I have a personal interest in brain tumours, as my daughter lives with a brain tumour. It is often only because they are affected by family or friends having a brain tumour that people become more interested in the illness. As the application suggests, we have cross-party support for the group, and I think that everybody who has put their name to the application will have a similar personal interest in it.

Although we have a cross-party group on cancer, the point of the proposed group is to be more specific about brain tumours. Around 1,000 people in Scotland are diagnosed with a brain tumour or brain cancer each year, and a huge number of those people are under 40. It appears that not much progress has been made in the past two or three decades. The intention of the cross-party group is to focus a bit more on what we can do to bring the clinical side and patients together and make some progress on achieving better outcomes.

Will that be one compatible system across the UK?

The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission report raised specific risks for welfare at the independent tracks through the lack of immediate veterinary care and recommended that a vet should be required at tracks to collect injury and fatality data. Given that recommendation, is the Scottish Government currently minded to introduce a requirement for a vet to be present at independent tracks?

Good morning, minister. Do you think there is a need for more traceability of greyhounds in early life in Scotland and across the UK? If so, how do you think that could be achieved?

Thank you.

Amendment 167, in my name, seeks to change the wording regarding who is to be consulted, from those whom “Scottish Ministers ... consider appropriate” to those who are

“likely to be affected by provisions in this section”.

That wording is more in line with previous legislation. I believe that the more specific wording will ensure that people who are affected by the provisions will have the opportunity to voice their views through consultation.

Amendment 144 seeks to expand the schedule 1 list of products that could be supported by Scottish ministers by adding venison to the list. Stakeholders have expressed concern about the extent to which the bill supports or does not support different areas. The amendment provides much-needed clarity that venison is a product that can be supported by Scottish ministers. It provides important future flexibility, as venison presents an opportunity for the agricultural sector and for food security, particularly in relation to finding new markets for culled venison. I ask the committee to support amendment 144.

Given what the cabinet secretary said about recognising the views from around the table and recognising that there will be more work to be done, I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 159 not moved.

Amendment 160 not moved.

Amendment 161 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Amendment 171 seeks to change the wording regarding who is to be consulted, from those who the Scottish ministers “consider appropriate” to those who are

“likely to be affected by provisions in this section”.

That wording is more in line with that contained in existing legislation.

I acknowledge that my amendment is similar to Rhoda Grant’s amendment 76. However, I believe that the more specific wording in my amendment will ensure that people affected by the provisions will have the opportunity to voice their views through consultation. I intend to move amendment 171, and I will be interested to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say.

Section 9, as drafted, gives the Scottish ministers the power either to cap or taper payments. Rightly, it does not compel the Scottish ministers to use those powers, nor does it stipulate how they are to be used, leaving that for secondary legislation. My amendment 159 seeks to state in the bill that the Scottish ministers also have the power to use a front-loading approach, which is similar to, but distinct from, tapering. Stating that within the bill will indicate that the Scottish ministers have the power to use that tool to address the disadvantages faced by crofters and smaller farmers.

My amendment 165 defines “payments under tier 1” in section 9.

Amendment 163, in my name, would define the persons consulted on the powers in section 9 as those who are

“likely to be affected by provisions in this section”.

I believe that that more specific wording will ensure that those who are affected by the provisions have the opportunity to voice their views through consultation.

Amendment 164, in my name, would require regulations made under section 9 to be subject to the affirmative procedure. In my view, that would be the appropriate level of scrutiny for the powers that the Scottish ministers have in that section.

I ask members to support my amendments 159, 163, 164 and 165.