Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023

Official Report 752KB pdf

---

Bracken Control

Our next item of business is evidence on bracken control from Lorna Slater, Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity, and her Scottish Government officials, who are Jackie Hughes, deputy director at the agriculture and rural economy directorate and head of Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture; Jack Bloodworth, principal scientific adviser at the rural and environment science and analytical services division; and Romy Strachan, policy officer. I invite the minister to make an opening statement.

Thank you for inviting me to give evidence on bracken control. This year, the Scottish ministers consented to the Health and Safety Executive’s decision, because of risks to human and environmental health, to refuse the application for emergency use of Asulox in Scotland. Ministers are also aware of the risks that are associated with bracken, and our consent to the regulatory recommendation was not given lightly.

Authorisation of the emergency use of Asulox has been granted annually for 10 years, and Asulox has been applied to between 2,000 and 3,000 hectares of land—to about 2 per cent of Scottish bracken—where topography precludes mechanical control. This year, the Health and Safety Executive assessed that Asulox use did not meet the legislative requirements for authorisation, as safety concerns and risks were identified that outweighed the benefits of use.

The regulatory safety concerns centred on several points. No progress has been made in addressing the risk that relates to Asulam’s endocrine-disrupting properties. The European Food Safety Authority concluded that Asulam meets the criteria for an endocrine disruptor—a substance that can alter the function of the hormonal system in humans.

No progress has been made on addressing data requirements from previous authorisations in relation to livestock exclusion restrictions and long-term risks to soil organisms, birds and mammals. There is also concern relating to the toxicity data of the technical material about a new risk, as well as concerns about detections in water.

Insignificant progress has been made on the development of alternative controls.

Without progress towards filling the data gaps as requested and removing the need for future authorisations, it becomes difficult to characterise the need as an emergency.

The evidence about the risk that is associated with bracken was robustly assessed by ministers during the process of consenting to the regulatory advice. That included consideration of the impacts on biodiversity, forestry and grazing, as well as concerns about links with tick-borne disease.

We are committed to working closely with stakeholders to support sustainable and proportionate bracken management. In August, the cabinet secretary and I convened a stakeholder round table to discuss next steps. We committed to establishing a working group to lead on identified priorities, including further evidence gathering; to support the publication of updated bracken control guidance for land managers, which was a particular request; and to ensure that the decision on the 2024 application is communicated as early as possible, as this year’s delay was frustrating.

Decisions on pesticide authorisation are based on regulation and scientific evidence, and the use of products is authorised when evidence demonstrates that they do not pose unacceptable risks to people, animals or the environment. I am happy to take any questions that the committee has.

Thank you for your update. You have said in the past that we need to take urgent action to reverse the decrease in biodiversity and address the impact that land uses and climate change are having on nature.

11:30  

It looks as if bracken biomass has increased by 28 per cent in the past two or three years, which is hugely significant. Bracken suppresses, or even kills altogether, other species that grow underneath. How will bracken control be tackled as a matter of urgency? I understand the reasons for Asulox not being licensed, but that takes away one of the primary tools for controlling the spread of bracken. Is the Scottish Government looking urgently at alternative methods to control bracken?

I challenge the assumption that Asulox was a primary means of controlling bracken, because only 2 per cent of bracken in Scotland was being treated with Asulox, while 98 per cent is managed by other means or is not managed at all.

I agree that there appears to be an overgrowth of bracken, which seems to be increasing, but we do not have solid evidence of that. As part of the process, the Scottish Government commissioned the James Hutton Institute to conduct a review of the evidence, which found some gaps. We do not know exactly where the bracken is, whether and how quickly the spread is increasing, or which land management practices promote bracken and which discourage it.

There is a larger issue here. As part of the round table that the cabinet secretary and I had last week, we spoke with stakeholders, including farmers and environmental charities, who are affected by bracken, to understand what is needed. It sounds as if we need a big picture. The big ask was for guidance. We all agreed that we need more research to fill the data gaps and have a better understanding. We are taking action to move those projects forward because we all agreed that that is a priority.

To follow up on the final point I made my opening remarks, I realise that timing was an issue. Another ask that came from the round table was that we should improve the timing of the communication of decisions.

A written response to a question that I asked you more than a year ago showed that you were aware then of everything that you have just said, but there has been little action on the ground. We have not seen a programme to map bracken to the extent that we need. Some research suggests that there has been a significant increase in carbon storage in areas that are not covered in bracken, which is obviously important. The safety aspects of other bracken control methods have not been looked at in any great detail.

So, a year on from a commitment that you made, nothing has happened. When will we actually see Scottish Government funding to put some of those practices in place, so that we are not in the position that we were in this year, when land managers were desperate to get a decision about Asulox? We need a far more planned approach. Is funding forthcoming?

Once again, I challenge the assertion that nothing has been done. Commissioning the James Hutton Institute to undertake a review of the existing evidence was the first step towards understanding where the gaps are, so that we can commission research into those gaps.

After our discussion with the round table last week, we have identified some of the places where the research is most needed and we can take that forward. I would be happy to write to the member about what came out of that round table and how we are going to move the research forward, because that is something that we are all interested in.

Please say a wee bit more about the extent to which the Scottish Government could be said to be following scientific advice on the decision, and how that compares to, or contrasts with, the position taken by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in England.

Absolutely. Decisions about pesticides, such as this one, are undertaken on behalf of the Scottish Government by the Health and Safety Executive, which is the delegated authority and does that based on all the necessary evidence.

The emergency application concerning Asulox was made at the UK level. The Health and Safety Executive takes evidence, makes a decision and then makes a recommendation to all four UK nations, at which point each of the four nations responds by either accepting the HSE’s recommendation or by taking other action. In this case, DEFRA took another action, which was to call in the refusal and then make a different decision.

When I got the Health and Safety Executive’s recommendation, I asked the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides to take a view on it. In addition, the Scottish Government’s chief scientific adviser took a view. As has every Scottish minister before me, I agreed to go with the HSE’s recommendation. A Scottish minister has never gone against an HSE recommendation. As to why DEFRA took a different decision, I am unfamiliar with its reasons; it has not published them.

There are reasons why we need to control bracken, including the environmental damage that it causes. It is also quite dangerous to human health, not only because of the ticks that inhabit it but because it causes cancers. It is a no-win situation if we cannot control it.

When do you expect that the James Hutton Institute will come back to you, which will allow us to look at the issue in more detail? What alternatives are available just now? It is spreading as we speak, so doing nothing is not an option. The situation will be different—it will be worse—when we are in a position to do something about it, so it is quite concerning that nothing will happen until a policy is worked up, which will take a long time.

I am happy to go through the issues that the member has raised.

Bracken is only carcinogenic to humans if we consume it. That is not a practice in Scotland. In some parts of the world, people eat young fronds, but that is not a tradition in Scotland. Bracken does not have that effect unless you eat it. If, for example, animals eat bracken regularly as fodder and humans eat the meat of those animals regularly, there is the potential for that to be the case. Equally, however, that does not happen in Scotland; our animals do not eat bracken as their main food source. The issues that the member raises in relation to bracken being carcinogenic do not apply here, as we do not consume bracken in that way.

The James Hutton Institute report has come back, and it has identified evidence gaps. As I said to Mr Carson, it is up to the Scottish Government to decide what research projects to undertake to fill those gaps. I have already committed to Mr Carson that I will write to the committee. In that letter, I will set out what research is needed to fill those gaps, and—

Sorry to interrupt, but can we get a timeline as well? The timeline is important.

Absolutely. Yes, we will ensure that all the information is in there.

On the action that is being taken, 98 per cent of bracken in Scotland—so, nearly all of it—is already being managed by other means or not being managed at all. That is unchanged; only the remaining 2 per cent is affected by the refusal to grant an emergency authorisation this year.

There are a number of methods for managing bracken. It can be managed mechanically and it can be sprayed from ground level with other chemicals. There are also ecological methods, including allowing tree growth, which is a natural mechanism. We probably need to look into what those ecological methods are; that needs to be developed through the research.

We have been asked by members of the round table, which comprised farmers and other people affected by bracken, to urgently provide guidelines, setting out what we need to do. Our priority is to get those guidelines out, so that land managers know what they can do right now.

When will those be available?

I do not have a date for that, but I can get the member that information.

I have an issue to raise before I move on to other members. You mentioned tree growth. There was a 28 per cent increase in bracken biomass while Asulox was licensed for use. The situation would appear to be out of control. I take on board your point that we are talking about only 2 per cent of bracken, but we have removed one of the tools to tackle it. We cannot plant trees where there is bracken that needs to be controlled; doing that will not work. Is it not a chicken-and-egg situation? If you cannot plant the trees, how will they stop the growth of bracken? I am a bit confused.

I do not mean to suggest that the solution to all situations is to plant trees. That might be appropriate in some cases. We definitely need a suite of tools to manage bracken.

As for tree growth, commercial forestry interests like to clear the bracken to allow seedlings to come up straight, but they can use other mechanisms for that, such as mechanical mechanisms or ground spraying of other chemicals. The big difference with Asulox was that it allowed for aerial spraying. Other chemicals are authorised for use in ground spraying, so that can continue as it always has.

There is an interesting point about tree growth for those who are looking for natural regeneration. The rewilding group that I met said that, although it does not manage its bracken, the trees still come through. They are a bit stunted and twisted, which is fine for regeneration, albeit that it is not good for commercial forestry.

The choice of mechanism therefore depends on the desired land use, the available tools and the topography of the land in question. We need that suite of guidelines so that each land manager can make the right choice for their land.

The James Hutton Institute’s research could be critical, because it will give us an idea of which areas of bracken could be controlled by mechanical methods and those where it is not safe to do so. That will give us an indication of how successful any potential control methods will be.

I have a number of questions. First, before she advised land managers to use mechanical controls, had the minister visited a bracken-affected area to enable her to understand its topography?

I have never advised anyone on bracken control.

I am sorry—I meant the Scottish Government and not the minister.

I had not visited a bracken-infested area when I agreed to go along with the Health and Safety Executive’s decision. I have visited lots of areas of Scotland that have bracken, but not with the specific intention of discussing it when making that decision. Of course, I have spoken to many land managers, including having the conversation that I have just mentioned about natural regeneration coming through bracken.

When I agreed to the Health and Safety Executive’s recommendation on the matter, it was on the basis that it had looked at all the evidence for itself. I have its full report here, which I am happy to go through with the member. I also asked the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides, and we had a report from the chief scientific adviser. I undertook to consider all that evidence in agreeing to the Health and Safety Executive’s advice.

You mentioned that you took advice from the ECP, but that remains a little bit of a mystery to me. The HSE did not seek new advice

“from the ECP on the 2023 application as no new scientific questions were identified for independent advice.”

The ECP states that it is

“a scientific committee and ... could only provide substantive advice when adequate data are supplied to enable Members to reach conclusions”

and that it operates

“on a precautionary basis and would continue to do so on occasions where Members were unable to reach a conclusion due to lack of data.”

How did you make the conclusion when the ECP did not advise the HSE, the data was inconclusive, and no new data was provided?

I ask Jackie Hughes to come in if I have missed anything, but, as far as I understand it the ECP had made recommendations in previous years. This year, its advice was unchanged from that in previous years.

Well, why did you recommend it last year?

What has changed this year is the Health and Safety Executive’s recommendation. I am happy to go through the reasons for that change, which I have here.

The reasons why, after 10 years of authorising the use of Asulam, the Health and Safety Executive changed its mind this year are as follows.

First, as I have already mentioned, Asulam is considered an endocrine-disrupting chemical, which is a

“substance that alters the ... functions of the ... hormonal system, causing adverse health effects”.

Since 2020, as part of the requirements for making the emergency authorisation, the Health and Safety Executive has asked applicants to provide evidence on that, which they have failed to do. That was one reason. The Health and Safety Executive was not given sufficient evidence by the applicants, which they had been asked for.

A second reason why its use was refused this year was that a new process was being considered that had a new and relevant impurity in it. The data required to evidence the toxicological assessment of that impurity was not submitted, so it could not be assessed.

Another issue is that, in previous years, after emergency applications, Asulam, which is the main chemical, has been found in water in both Scotland and England. The spraying of the chemical in Scotland led to an incident where it exceeded the water quality standard for drinking water, which was above the level for 2022. Such evidence that it was getting into drinking water at above safe levels was another reason for the decision.

11:45  

The final reason was that, although the HSE recognises the importance of managing bracken for the prevention of Lyme disease and the regeneration of habitat, it points out, and I will read out its exact answer:

“however, while the benefits of controlling bracken are set out, the applicant has indicated that bracken covers 1.5 million hectares in the UK but proposes to treat only 7,500 hectares”—

that is, in the UK—

“meaning that the danger remains in 99.5% of the UK”

and in 98 per cent of Scotland.

“Therefore, the extent of the reduction in danger is unclear and may be low.”

This year, the HSE could not authorise the treating of 2 per cent of Scottish bracken with that chemical because it has ended up in the water, we do not have data that shows that it is safe when it comes to endocrine disruption, and no toxicological data has been supplied about the new impurity in it.

The Bracken Control Group would contest that there is on-going research on the use of Asulox.

The response from the Government remains a bit sloppy. The response was that the Government had taken advice from the ECP; however, if the ECP advice has remained unchanged since 2022, that was technically incorrect, despite the minister now saying that other information was forthcoming.

What assessment has the Scottish Government carried out of the carcinogenic effect of the increase in the growth of bracken by watercourses?

As I have said, the paper that we have on the carcinogenic effects of bracken relates to people consuming it—eating it—which is not standard practice in Scotland, so that is not a mechanism—

Are you not worried about the effect of the growing bracken on watercourses?

There is no evidence of significant exposure in that respect. We have some papers on that. For example, one states:

“while some studies have linked exposure via drinking water to some cancers (e.g., Galpin et al., 1990) a FERA risk assessment from 2010 suggest that human exposure to bracken toxins via drinking water is low”.

There is a reference paper for that as well. I would be happy to share those papers with the member.

You referred to a figure of 2 per cent. I must have spoken to all the people who are affected, at the Royal Highland Show and the Kelso show. The topic of conversation seemed to be that land managers were left without any ability to look to an alternative. If there were concerns and the devolved Administration had the ability to make a decision much more quickly, why did you not do that, to give people clarity?

Absolutely. That is a real frustration. I, too, engaged with people at the Royal Highland Show and elsewhere, and I understand that that was a frustration. I am happy to go through that.

I remind the member that Asulox is not an authorised chemical. It has not been authorised in the UK for more than 15 years. The emergency authorisation process has been used every year to enable its use.

The timeline this year was that, on 20 March, I received the HSE recommendation. I consulted with the ECP, as discussed, and I was able to make my decision on 3 May. Because the application was for the UK, all four nations needed to respond before the result could be published. That is the convention. Some of the nations were slower than us. After all had responded, we got the final decision from DEFRA on 15 June. There was some delay in DEFRA making that decision. A further six days passed while the Scottish Government considered DEFRA’s decision before we made ours.

I am very keen to consider whether, next year, we can break convention and have different nations announcing their decisions in a more timely manner. I am happy to take away an action to discuss that with the Health and Safety Executive. That has never been done before, but, because I understand everybody’s frustration, I am happy to take that away as a discussion to have with the HSE.

That is helpful.

You will be aware of the new product amidosulfuron. What work is the Government doing to establish a new approach to control? Obviously, mechanical control on steep banking is not safe.

It is very difficult to suck up the argument that only in some circumstances is it important to control ticks, because they can be a public health issue for walkers, ramblers and others enjoying the countryside due to the risk of Lyme disease. We know that ticks carrying Lyme disease are more prevalent in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, which is really important, but people seem to be picking and choosing when controlling ticks or Lyme disease is important. I am referring to the previous discussion about deer. It is important that we take a consistent approach. I make that comment.

The member is absolutely right; I agree that we need to be consistent. Bracken causes some challenges with respect to Lyme disease. Only 2 per cent of the bracken was being managed with Asulox, with 98 per cent being managed in other ways. That means that it is unlikely that the 2 per cent of bracken was making a significant difference to Lyme disease, especially because that bracken was, by definition, in areas that were topographically difficult for people to get to.

Bracken is a challenge and I absolutely understand the severity of the situation with ticks in bracken. Asulox was not solving the problem, which is one that we need to work on together, because we need a steady approach to bracken.

We also do not actually have good evidence, as was highlighted by the review carried out by the James Hutton Institute. We do not have evidence that bracken carries more ticks than other herbage, or evidence on why it might do so—it might be caused by increased deer numbers or by climate change—or why it appears that there are more ticks than there used to be. We just do not have the evidence. That is one piece of work that needs to be done.

To go back to the member’s first question, the James Hutton Institute also brought up the issue of gaps in the evidence about amidosulfuron. It has been used, but there has not been enough experimentation to know whether repeated treatments would be needed or how effective it might be in the long run.

As I said at the start, the James Hutton Institute review identified the gaps in knowledge, one of which is about amidosulfuron, another of which is about ticks. We also do not know about other management mechanisms or about where the bracken is growing, or how fast. Those are all evidence gaps. In the letter that I have promised to send to the committee, I will ensure that we include information about how all those gaps might be filled and about the process for developing a research programme.

Kate Forbes and Ariane Burgess have questions.

This may be a slight tangent. I know that the minister will be very familiar with the two large wildfires in my constituency over the summer, one at Daviot and one at Cannich. I went to visit the site of one of the fires and was repeatedly told, by environmental charities as well as by gamekeepers, that one primary reason for the wildfires spreading so quickly, particularly at Cannich, was the fuel load. There had been a build-up of vegetation and there was a lot of stuff to burn across vast areas where the only option might be the aerial application of something to control bracken.

In your deliberations about the importance of bracken control, did you consider the risk of the fast spread of wildfires? Might that be a consideration as you weigh up the pros and cons of using particular methods of bracken control?

Let me be clear that Asulox is not an authorised chemical, but that there is a process by which it has been used. The Bracken Control Group applies for emergency authorisation and, within that application, makes arguments as to why that particular mechanism should be used. The risk of fire is not on the list of arguments, so that would not have been considered, because the HSE was not asked to consider it. If the group wished to include that reason in future applications, the HSE would do that.

The question is really interesting. It is clear that we must manage bracken—I am in no doubt about that. The question is whether Asulox is the right tool to use as part of the authorisation mechanism. That was the question at hand, not the broader question of whether we need to manage bracken, which is something that we all agree on.

I am hearing that 2 per cent of bracken has been managed with Asulox, which is sprayed aerially—

—and from the ground.

That was one thing that I wanted to clarify.

The reason why the Health and Safety Executive has raised the issue—it is probably why the chemical is not authorised and why it can be used only under an emergency application—is that the chemical is an endocrine disruptor. Is that correct?

Yes. The key reason is that Asulam is considered by the European Food Safety Authority to be an endocrine-disrupting chemical.

Can you explain to some degree what endocrine disruptors do?

I can have a go. There are various hormone pathways in the body—for androgen hormones, for example, which control sex characteristics and so on. Asulam is considered an endocrine disruptor of the T pathway, which involves thyroid function. As I understand it from looking online, that largely affects embryos and developing humans.

That is the limit of my understanding—that endocrine disruptors affect human development. There is a risk that they will affect the development of birds and mammals, as well as aquatic organisms. There is a lack of evidence—neither the applicant nor the manufacturer has demonstrated that the chemical is safe. It is for the producer to demonstrate to the authorisation bodies that the product is safe to use and does not have such negative effects, and it has failed to do so.

Who do the land managers who wish to use Asulox apply to? Is it NatureScot?

They apply to the Health and Safety Executive.

So, the Health and Safety Executive knows where Asulox is being used in Scotland.

That is correct.

You said that one concern is that the chemical is flowing into our watercourses. Once something gets into water, we cannot really control where it goes. Will you speak a bit more about that concern?

I have just the evidence that is in front of us, which is that Scottish Water regularly detects residues of Asulam in water supplies. As the result of one ground-spraying incident, the levels exceeded drinking water standard limits. Asulam is getting into the water table.

That relates only to Scottish Water’s responsibility, which is the public water supply. In the uplands where spraying is happening, there are many private water supplies that are not tested, so we do not know whether they are being contaminated.

You said that the James Hutton Institute will review the evidence to look for gaps and will then do more—

It has completed that work.

Will it be doing further research?

That is to be decided. The James Hutton Institute provided an evidence review that identified all the gaps, which is now with the Scottish Government to think about how we want to move that forward. At the round table last week, we discussed the research priorities. I have committed to writing to the committee about how we intend to take forward that research.

I might be mixing two things together but, if such work is done, will there be research on the evidence gaps for water that is not being tested?

The testing of water supplies was not one of the things that the James Hutton Institute identified, but that is an interesting point. If we take Asulam out of the system by not allowing the emergency authorisation this year, we will not expect such contamination to occur.

You referred to the thyroid. Has the Health and Safety Executive done any work on health issues for people who are in areas where Asulam has been used?

That has not been done in relation to the detections in Scotland in the past few years, because most of them have been residual and below the level that is a safety concern. There has been just one incident when the figure was above that level. Scottish Water has worked to manage that. There is no suggestion of undertaking a large trial, which would require us to put Asulam into the landscape.

Is there any concern about accumulation over time? Asulam has not been an authorised chemical for 15 years, but it has been used under emergency application in that time. Is there concern about an accumulation of Asulam in the land?

That is a good question. I ask Jackie Hughes to say whether that is a characteristic of Asulam.

There was nothing in the rapid evidence review particularly around persistence, was there, Jack?

No.

It is not something that we are particularly concerned about.

On drinking water concentrations, there have been no exceedances at tap of the permitted concentration of Asulam. We are talking about raw water. The HSE’s concerns about finding some exceedances in raw water in relation to Asulam have been to do with the potential for endocrine disruption and the lack of data on that. It is difficult to characterise the risk, but there is not the level of concern that would mean that conducting the type of research that you are suggesting would be of benefit.

12:00  

Clearly, however, we need more information about that chemical and its endocrine-disrupting ability.

If we were to continue to allow its use, yes. It is with the manufacturer to bring forward its evidence. One reason why the emergency authorisation was rejected is that the manufacturer has been repeatedly asked to show the evidence that the product does not have that effect. If it can provide that information, and, as Rachael Hamilton said, it intends to do that research and share its evidence, that is fine. Once it does so, the matter can be reconsidered.

I am still a bit confused. This is probably one of the reasons why there was a bit of confusion when we looked at the issue prior to the summer recess. The UK Expert Committee on Pesticides looks at chemicals, and the HSE looks at that evidence to make a decision. In making its decision, the HSE considers whether the benefits outweigh the potential harm. I get that—that is one of the critical factors.

The ECP said that it would not recommend granting emergency authorisation. Much of that was due to the fact that the applicants had not provided any more information, which is one of the technical obligations for getting an emergency authorisation. It is not an emergency if nothing changes; it is an on-going issue. The ECP based its advice on the fact that, technically, nothing had changed and therefore the situation could not be considered to be an emergency.

Do you mean with the chemical?

Yes. Does the HSE look at the impact of bracken on biodiversity or whatever? Do HSE officials sit down, do that work and then come up with a reasoned and balanced argument for recommending that ministers grant or do not grant authorisation? Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct. The convener has understood it well. The ECP looks at the chemical. There was no new information about the chemical in question. The HSE looks at things much more in the round. I have the full report with me. I will not inflict that on you, but I note that the HSE’s assessment must include a series of tests, and the application must pass those tests. The application did not pass all the tests. For example, the test on the need for special circumstances was not met. Some tests were met, such as the danger test—we know that bracken is a hazard. The reasonable alternatives test was also met.

Another test is whether the emergency authorisation appears necessary to address the danger. That test was not met, because the danger from the 75,000 hectares of bracken, or however many there are, is not being met by treating only around 2,000 hectares of it.

The HSE looks at applications in the round. It agrees that bracken is a danger, but the application did not meet all the tests.

That is interesting. Is the HSE’s report in the public domain?

No, it is not in the public domain.

The report is quite important when it comes to our consideration of how the decision was made. Can it be made available to the committee?

We can take that away.

I can ask.

Thank you—that would be useful.

I have a final question, which might give you an opportunity to sum up, minister. Where are we with the national bracken strategy? I understand that NatureScot and its counterparts in England have met to discuss the approach but, as yet, they have not met stakeholders. Will you give an overview of how the strategy will be developed and how stakeholders—not just NatureScot and its counterparts in England—will be involved?

You are correct that the work to develop that is early doors. The commissioning of the work from the James Hutton Institute was a good first step, and the round-table event the other week was a good preliminary step in understanding which research areas are important and how we want stakeholders to engage.

I am not aware that, as yet, there is a plan to take that forward, but I am happy to go away, get that information and provide it to you, convener.

Rachael Hamilton has a supplementary question.

I forgot to ask you something, minister. When farmers and land managers talked to me about the issue, they brought up the agri-environment climate scheme. The scheme asks them to control bracken through the use of Asulam. Will AECS change to reflect your decision on the use of that pesticide? What are your views on that?

That is a really good question. For the 2023 season, some people received money through AECS for chemical control. We have removed the ability for them to do that. It was agreed that those who had received funding would retain it and that they could alter their proposal. For example, if it was useful for them to use the money for mechanical control, that could be done. We allowed some flexibility to make sure that those AECS recipients could still make use of the funding that they had received. The cabinet secretary has—budgetary pressures permitting—committed to include funding for bracken control in the next round of AECS.

That brings us to the end of our questions. Thank you very much, minister. You have given us a lot of time this morning, which is much appreciated.

That concludes this agenda item and the public part of our meeting.

12:06 Meeting continued in private until 12:37.