Chamber and committees

Can I get clarification specifically on that?

Thank you, convener.

I am minded not to support amendment 54, in the name of the minister, on the basis that a very credible proposal on humane cable restraint use was brought to the committee at stage 1. It is important to recognise that such devices are vital for those living and working in rural Scotland to protect not only livestock but species that are under threat. Indeed, I know that the minister is aware of that.

I recognise that significant animal welfare charities have done good work, including work on the impact of the use of traditional snares, but, on the proposal for a humane cable restraint—which is an international standard restraint—I do not believe that the necessary work has been done to ensure that the committee has full knowledge of the matter. An impact assessment needs to be done to allow us to understand the impact on the species that are under threat, such as curlews and lapwings.

We, as a responsible committee, need to recognise that any legal challenge would come at great expense to the taxpayer. Moreover, if there were a legal challenge to banning snares, we would not be able to get into the nuts and bolts of it. I have to say that I am slightly surprised that the minister has not recognised the possibility of a legal challenge on the basis of the European convention on human rights.

It was pointed out earlier that the DPLR Committee has had difficulty in understanding why the first rural support plan is not at a more advanced stage. Comments in the responses to the call for views said that there is not a clear direction of travel, which the DPLR Committee agrees with.

I, along with the DPLR Committee, would like to know whether the witnesses agree that a draft plan should be published ahead of stage 3 of the bill, and whether that should be subject to statutory consultation. In addition, is there a place for annual scrutiny by the Parliament?

I will start with Professor Thomson, as he made the initial comments on that.

I could not agree with you more. In a family farming unit, there are varying skills and not all the individuals are recognised as the primary producer or the actual farmer. If we recognise that there is a wider input into making a productive, efficient and profitable farming enterprise, we need to recognise that it is not just the farmer who needs support but the wider community, including family members and even neighbours in terms of that peer-to-peer, whole-system approach.

It is interesting that the responses so far have been connected to things that are outwith agriculture, but the ANM Group made the point that core agricultural activity is integral to supporting rural communities, so its comment about the contraction of the suckler beef herd is important because so many jobs rely on it. Can Jeremy Moody comment on the relationship between rural communities and core agricultural activity?

Considering our earlier conversation regarding modernising agricultural tenancies and the proposed land reform bill, which we have not yet seen a draft of, and to take Jeremy Moody’s point at face value, we know what we are trying to achieve with the climate change plan, for example, but with regard to modernising agricultural tenancies and ensuring that farmers are supported to make the changes on conditionality, it can be very difficult to know what we are trying to achieve if that is not written down explicitly.

This is for Rob Clarke. I live in an area that is represented by South of Scotland Enterprise. Does he expect that HIE or SOSE would be offering advice to farmers? Would it be right not only that farmers have CPD but that others give advice?

Douglas, you furnished me with a copy of a Scottish Tenant Farmers Association newsletter in which there was a piece on agricultural support payments that criticised the lack of meaningful engagement. However, it went on to say that you were pleased to see that, born out of that frustration, FAST—the food and agriculture stakeholders task force—was set up. How is FAST achieving that meaningful engagement with the Government that you are looking for?

Just to clarify, animal welfare is devolved, so could you at any point take a different approach to the matter?