Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, but we need to get underneath it, because we are basically building—

The conversation on the SSBSS has been very interesting. I would like to pick up on the good agricultural and environmental conditions scheme piece of the Scottish statutory instrument. I am not going to directly pursue this SSI, because I appreciate that it is improving the prevention of damage to peatlands and wetlands, but I will pursue the underlying legislation that the SSI is built on.

We just passed the 2024 ARC act—I love that we call it that—which includes, as an objective,

“the facilitation of on-farm nature restoration, climate mitigation and adaptation”.

In speaking to farmers, I have found that they want to move in that direction, but they bump into situations where they cannot get funding to do the things that they want to do on nature restoration because the funding schemes have not caught up.

The specific SSI that we are discussing, and the GAEC—good agricultural and environmental conditions—scheme in particular, build on the Weeds Act 1959. The 1959 act mentions a number of plants that are now recognised as beneficial. In 1959, they were weeds, and we had to get rid of them, but we now recognise that they are important for soil biology. Those plants include, for example, spear thistle, which produces quantities of nectar for, and entices, insects; creeping thistle, which is, again, important for insects; and docks, which are important for insect habitat and for soil biology.

Where I am going here is that, because the SSI is about cross-compliance, we need to look a bit deeper at what these SSIs are built on. I would love to get some assurance on that. Can the Weeds Act 1959 be devolved? Does the Scottish Government have domain over reviewing it, so that plants that we call weeds but which are in fact beneficial could be removed from the legislation? That is the type of thing that farmers are coming up against in trying to get funding. They might want to do something beneficial, but they cannot get funding, because those plants are still designated as weeds.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, and welcome to the 31st meeting in 2024 of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. Fulton MacGregor, Willie Coffey and Mark Griffin are joining us online. I remind all members and witnesses to ensure that their devices are on silent.

The first item on our agenda is to decide whether to take items 5, 6, 7 and 8 in private. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next item on our agenda is to take evidence on the Ethical Standards Commissioner’s annual report for 2023-24. We are joined by Ian Bruce, who is the Ethical Standards Commissioner. Welcome to the meeting. I begin by inviting you to make a brief opening statement.

Thanks very much. I will bring in Willie Coffey, who joins us online.

That certainly makes sense.

I will bring in Fulton MacGregor, who is also online.

Thanks very much for that opening statement. I will begin with home sharing and letting, which came up when we considered the issue a while ago. I am interested to hear why you chose not to consider areas of significant stakeholder concern, such as the inclusion of home sharing and letting in the licensing regime, as part of the update process.

On the mandatory training process, I hear what you are saying around information overload. I certainly experienced that when I first started in this role as an MSP. Maybe there could be a drip-feed process over time that makes sure that, over a number of months, they do the training and are aware of the sections that are relevant. Getting a lot of information all at once is not useful because it does not necessarily go in.

Our final questions come from Emma Roddick.