Seòmar agus comataidhean

On Tim Eagle’s amendment 324, the Scottish ministers have been clear that there is no contradiction between producing food and doing it in a way that works for the climate and nature. There are many examples of that, including organic farming and silvoarable agroforestry. Amendment 324 would put those areas in conflict. It also fails to recognise the importance of non-prime agricultural land—including our grasslands, which are the source of our dairy and livestock production—to Scottish agricultural output.

Given the devastating impact that climate change will have on prime agricultural land, not just in Scotland but around the world, we need to ensure that we continue to maintain our productive capacity in Scotland, while also ensuring that we meet our climate obligations. The biodiversity crisis also requires action on all landscape types so that Scotland can maintain the functioning ecosystems that our food production relies on. Amendment 324 would prevent that, and it is for that reason that I encourage members not to support it.

On Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 289, I appreciate her enduring interest in the important topic of rural crime, not least the theft of machinery and equipment from rural businesses. I am aware that Rachael Hamilton has been having discussions with my ministerial colleague Siobhian Brown, who has stated that the Scottish Government would be happy to work with her on a legislative solution to replicate the key points in the UK Government’s Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, although we recognise that that would need to be done after the election. I reiterate that commitment to the committee. Given that the UK Government is still to implement the 2023 act, before we introduce legislation, it seems prudent to wait to see whether we can learn any lessons from that implementation and whether we can gain anything by considering the UK Government’s early experience with enforcement.

Clearly, the theft of equipment will affect the ability of a rural business to carry out its core tasks, such as food production, but a statutory review such as the one that is proposed in amendment 289 could be revisited in the future, as we consider the next steps in preventing the theft of equipment, which I recognise has a hugely detrimental impact on our rural communities. For those reasons, I ask Rachael Hamilton not to move amendment 289.

The issue that is covered by amendment 290 is a matter of interest in my constituency, so I want to make it clear that I appear before the committee today in my capacity as a Scottish Government minister. The position that I am representing reflects the Scottish Government’s collective view and concerns a matter of law and policy for which I have ministerial responsibility. Separately, and in line with the Scottish ministerial code, I have made my views and those of my constituents known to the responsible minister in the most appropriate way. The issue that is under discussion today is distinct from that constituency interest, and my contributions should therefore be understood as reflecting the Government’s position, not a personal or constituency-specific stance.

Ultimately, the key point about amendment 290 is that it would cut across work that is already under way, and it is important that I highlight that work. Collectively, the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments have commissioned the National Energy System Operator to produce a strategic spatial energy plan, which will set out a long-term view on the optimal type and location for energy generation and transmission across Great Britain on a zonal basis. Throughout its development, the plan will integrate environmental considerations, including by considering other uses for land, such as food production. The plan will be accompanied by a strategic environmental assessment, which will consider the likely significant environmental effects of the plan, and by a habitats regulation assessment.

That is not the only on-going work in this area. It is also important to highlight the on-going work to develop a new land use strategy, the consultation on which closed recently, in October. The upcoming strategy will set out our approach and intentions regarding land use integration, including in relation to renewable energy, how we understand and articulate current land use and how we should consider future land-based priorities.

For the reasons that I have set out, although I am sympathetic to the issues that Rachael Hamilton has raised, I cannot support amendment 290.

I am sorry, but I want to finish my point, because I think that it would address Douglas Ross’s point, too.

We are going to publish a paper on the future farming investment scheme, which should address some of the concerns that have been raised by Douglas Ross and other members and help with an understanding of the overall assessment process. For those reasons, I ask the committee not to support the amendments.

I am sorry, but I am finished.

I completely agree. Ultimately, as I hope I was able to outline earlier, I agree with what Ross Greer is trying to achieve. The only point that I was making was that his amendments were piecemeal and that it is important that we consider the issue as a whole. When looking at these two sets of amendments, it is easy to think that we are comparing like with like, but we are most definitely not—we are talking about very different situations. I believe that, ahead of stage 3, we can work on the specific amendments in this group.

We have already committed to doing a piece of work on penalties. Given the points that were made earlier, I appreciate that some people believe that that work is not being done quickly enough, which is why I committed to work with Maurice Golden on his amendment to ensure that we get a workable timescale.

Yes—I am happy to do so.

I appreciate the concerns that have been highlighted. If there are areas for us to reflect on, I am happy to do that. However, the decision has ultimately been made and the new memorandum of understanding is now in place, so I do not see the benefit in repeating a review that has already concluded.

Again, it is about the overall approach. I think that there are particular issues with the amendments, and I am more than happy to follow up with Ross Greer on those and to have a conversation about Maurice Golden’s amendments. However, we need to consider the issues in the round, which requires a lot more work.

Amendment 156, in the name of Sarah Boyack, would duplicate existing legislation, such as the Fisheries Act 2020 and the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, which already enable the management of fishing activity as envisaged by the amendment. Therefore, the amendment is not necessary or appropriate, and it further clutters the legislative landscape. For those reasons, I ask Sarah Boyack not to move amendment 156.

On amendment 265, ministers already possess the powers to take action if the evidence base indicates that that is needed. However, as we have outlined in the recently published “Scottish Blue Carbon Action Plan” and as Tim Eagle highlighted earlier—another of his points that I agree with—there are significant uncertainties about the impact of bottom trawling on seabed sediment carbon stores. This is an area that we are actively investigating, given the need for any policy intervention to be evidence based. Amendment 265 is therefore unnecessary.

Finally, on amendment 301, in the name of Ariane Burgess, we manage all fisheries on the basis of the best available evidence. We need flexible structures that adapt to emerging evidence rather than rigid primary legislation. The wild wrasse fishery is not open access—the marine directorate controls it through annual vessel-owner applications. There are limited participants operating under strict spatial, temporal and technical restrictions.

The 2025 fishery operates from June to November. Before opening this year, we published an assessment of wrasse fishery interaction with the MPA network, and we introduced new spatial management measures that prohibit fishing in relevant SACs and near kelp and seaweed communities in the relevant MPAs. Therefore, amendment 301 is unnecessary, because licensing is the appropriate approach to take.

The proposed amendments to the seasonal dates contradict the best available scientific evidence on protecting spawning fish and could put stocks at considerable risk. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment, and I ask the committee not to support it, too.

The issue is more that there would be disparity in the offences, because the amendments apply to only one specific piece of legislation. We need to consider other river systems, to which a broader range of legislation applies. I want to ensure that we have the same offences and penalties across the river systems in Scotland, so I would be looking to work with Emma Harper to address that issue.

I have finished, but I will take the intervention.

First, I want to say right from the start that I completely understand and support the motivation behind all of Emma Harper’s amendments in seeking to increase the financial penalties for the most serious offences against salmon, in order to bring particular offences into line with other wildlife crime and to enable certain financial penalties to be issued on a per-fish basis.

However, as drafted, the amendments apply only to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003, when there is actually a range of legislation on salmon poaching offences covering the River Tweed, the River Esk and, indeed, the rest of Scotland.

Given that the amendments do not extend to cover the equivalent offences that are set out in other regulations, agreeing to the amendments would mean that there would be significant disparity in penalties for offences in relation to salmon across the different rivers in Scotland.

I absolutely agree with Emma Harper’s intention, so, if she is willing to not press amendment 273 and to not move her other amendments in the group, we can work together ahead of stage 3.