Seòmar agus comataidhean

Sorry, convener—which question are we on? Have we moved on to question 15?

Right—that is fine. I thought that we had missed something earlier.

My question is about the code of practice. Stakeholders have highlighted unknowns around the code. They want to know how prescriptive it will be, what the timeline will be for bringing it in and whether compliance with the code will be enshrined in regulations under section 7. Could you say a bit more about the Government’s intentions when producing the code and using its section 7 powers?

One of the stakeholders said that the code is envisaged as being more of a manual that can be referred to. Is that how you envisage it?

There will be some support for it.

I reinforce the points that Rhoda Grant has made. What we have heard loudly and strongly is that farmers and crofters are in a holding pattern. They are holding off from making investments, including quite big investments, and that will have knock-on consequences for the supply chain and our rural communities. The sooner that farmers and crofters have the clarity and certainty that they have been crying out for, the better.

Do you have a timescale for having those discussions?

Can you say something about the budget for CPD? How will CPD be supported?

I will speak only to the amendments in my name. I thank the minister for giving her time to meet me recently.

My amendments 119, 135 and 157 relate to the suspension of licences for wildlife traps, grouse shooting and muirburn, respectively. Amendment 156 is a paving amendment that would enable amendment 157 to be inserted in the right place.

For each licence, my amendments would insert provision that, when a licence is suspended and notice is given of the said suspension, the notice must specify the estimated duration of the suspension. That estimated duration must be reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. The purpose of amendment 157 is to give licence holders confidence that, should their licence be suspended, they will be provided with information as to how long the relevant authority estimates that that suspension will last. Providing that information could reduce the administrative burden on the licensing authority.

Providing that information can reduce the administrative burden on the licensing authority, as a licence holder with a suspended licence will have an idea of the expected timescale. I recognise that investigations take time, that each is different and that it can be difficult to know exactly how long they will take. I agree that stating a definitive timescale would be problematic. That is why I have deliberately chosen the word “estimated”, to ensure that the licensing authority would be required to provide only an estimate, as that would enable flexibility should circumstances change.

Amendment 81, in the name of Jim Fairlie, would extend the length of a section 16AA licence from one to five years. The minister previously stated that there was no need to provide information about the length of suspension for those licences, as the maximum length would be a year. If amendment 81 was agreed to, that length would be increased. Therefore, I think that it is now relevant to include a provision that requires the licensing authority to give information to licence holders about the estimated duration of a suspension.

I note Rachael Hamilton’s amendments to my amendments, which would remove the word “estimated” and therefore require the licensing authority to state the duration of a suspension. I consider that removing the word “estimated” would change the function of the amendments by removing any flexibility.

I heard what the minister had to say on my amendments, but I am inclined to move amendment 119.

I will come on to that. I do not think that it is possible, which is why I am using the word “estimated”.