Seòmar agus comataidhean

My amendments in the group relate to redistribution of the agriculture support budget in line with social justice principles. Under the area-based system, the more farmland you have, the more support you get, regardless of what you do with that land or how much food you produce.

Many stakeholders are rightly highlighting the injustice of that system. Committee members might remember the demonstration outside the Scottish Parliament in February that was organised by the Landworkers Alliance, the Scottish Crofting Federation and three other organisations. They do not think that it is right that half of the agriculture budget goes to fewer than 10 per cent of Scottish farms—the largest, wealthiest and most profitable ones—while the small and medium-scale farmers, crofters and growers who produce our food and support nature restoration are struggling to make ends meet. It is not fair for farmers and it is not fair for the Scottish public, who expect public funds to support public goods, not to subsidise already wealthy landowners.

Section 9 gives ministers the powers to cap and/or taper farm support payments. If enacted, that would mean that funding would not increase indefinitely in line with the amount of farmland owned. That recognises that there is social value in limiting the amount of public funds given to the largest, wealthiest farms and in freeing up some of the agriculture budget to redistribute to some smaller or medium-sized farms, crofts or plots.

The current farm payment system already makes use of some minor capping and tapering and it would be seriously regrettable to backtrack on that progressive policy. Amendment 67 changes the power for ministers to enact capping and tapering to a duty to do so.

Amendment 68 would establish a minimum income floor for recipients of agricultural support. That would work well in conjunction with my later amendments on establishing a productive activity assessment as an optional route to qualify for income support, so that we can be sure that public money is supporting public goods. The farmers and crofters who are working hard to provide those public goods should be assured of a liveable income. Surely, that is essential to achieving the Government’s fair work and just transition aspirations. Perhaps it could form the basis of a trial of some kind of universal basic income for all farmers and crofters in Scotland.

Amendments 70 and 71 would give ministers the power to front load farm payments, which would mean that farmers would receive a higher rate for their first number of hectares up to a certain threshold. That would do the most to support small producers, who currently receive very little, if any, of the farmers support budget. Scotland has an income tax and benefits system that redistributes money from the asset-rich to the poor, because our society sees the value in that. Why not do similarly in farming, where just 9 per cent of holdings account for 76 per cent of the land? The Scottish Government has said that it will transform the way that it supports farming and crofting, but the committee’s report quotes the SCF’s submission that,

“after over 20 years of discussion about ‘public funds for public goods’ ... no commitment is made to meaningfully reform the system of area-based payments which, in its present form, mainly favours large landowners.”

That needs to change.

The cabinet secretary assured me that the Scottish Government is exploring the most effective mechanisms for achieving those policy intentions, which might include some combination of capping, tapering and/or front loading, or other mechanisms. I would welcome additional assurance about that.

I support Colin Smyth’s amendment 158, which would limit capping and tapering to tier 1, the most basic level of farming support. That would avoid the imposition of limits on schemes in tiers 2 and 4 that are designed to incentivise improvements for climate and nature and other policy objectives. Capping and tapering tier 1 would free up additional budget for those crucial schemes.

I move amendment 67.

Not moved, convener.

There is an error in the groupings, convener. The groupings have amendment 157, but the marshalled list has amendment 139.

I will speak initially to my amendment 201, which is a new amendment and seeks to add a definition of “horticulture” as used in part 2 of schedule 1. It states:

“‘horticulture’ means the growing and harvesting of edible horticultural crops, including fruit, vegetables, tubers, mushrooms, herbs, bush and tree nuts and seeds”.

I just wanted to clarify that, because some people interpret horticulture in a narrower way, and I want to ensure that growers producing any of those crops will be eligible for support.

In that light, I cannot support Kate Forbes’s amendment 140, which would allow the production of crops for energy—known, as we have heard, as biofuels—to be supported with agricultural money. If amendment 140 were agreed to, it would lead to double funding for biofuel production and increase the use of prime land for fuel, taking it away from food production. Many of the large farms that grow crops for biofuels already receive an enhanced guaranteed price for the energy produced via Office of Gas and Electricity Markets—or Ofgem—energy supply contracts. Should those same crops also receive basic payment scheme money, meaning that, in effect, already wealthy funded farms receive double funding from taxpayers? Some 11 per cent of Scottish arable land is already being used to grow biofuels. Instead of incentivising more of that, agricultural support should be focusing on food production.

Just yesterday, the UK Government announced a new package of measures in support of domestic food production, notably more support for horticulture—that is, for food—which it said will boost food security. If Kate Forbes’s amendment 140 is accepted, my definition of “horticulture” in amendment 201 will be even more important to ensure support for growing fruit and seeds for food, not only for energy.

My amendments in the group are intended to see whether the cabinet secretary will meet me to work on the significant problems brought on by a payment system that is exclusively based on area of land. We have already discussed the injustice with the principle of the area-based system, which needs reforming through redistribution, but I recognise that the area-based payment system is working smoothly and that many recipients are happy with it. The amendments would not change that.

The amendments are designed to give small-scale farmers, crofters and growers a different route to access and be assessed for direct payments for future tier 1 and tier 2 payments. Under the current system, farmers, crofters and growers on less than three hectares of land are ineligible for basic payments. Even those with more than three hectares but who are still on the smaller end of the spectrum, such as the numerous small producers in the Highlands and the Western Isles, receive negligible amounts of financial support. Others do not bother applying, because the amount that they would receive would not be worth the time and effort spent on the application. However, farmers, crofters and growers are providing public good—food for local markets, jobs and stewardship of the land—and they should be supported. Although the amendments would not remove the area-based payment option, they would add a second option that would throw small producers a lifeline—a route to direct payments at a meaningful level, based on their agricultural activity or labour.

Amendment 74 to section 13 stipulates that regulations must allow the recipients the choice of being assessed for support either on the basis of land area or on the basis of productive agricultural activity.

Amendment 78 would oblige ministers to create criteria for receiving support on the basis of agricultural activity. Eligibility would be based on either

“the amount of hours of activity”,

being the labour, per year, or the standard labour requirements—SLR—for the holding for farms that had already been assessed in that way. In either case, ministers would set a threshold for the amount of labour required on a holding in order to be eligible for direct payments.

Amendment 79 specifies that, when making provision for eligibility criteria in connection with the activity carried out by any recipient, ministers may consider the criteria as set out in my previous amendment or establish a turnover threshold that farms must meet alongside producing a minimum of 10 crops.

Amendment 75 would remove the line on page 7 of the bill that states that ministers may make provisions about

“how the amount of support is to be determined.”

That would be superseded by my amendment 74, which would require regulation to allow recipients to choose how the amount of their support will be determined.

To pre-empt any concerns that my amendments could incentivise overproduction, let me explain why they would not. First, the proposals are different from the old hedge payments. Farms would not receive a unit payment per ewe or per crop; they would receive payments for being a productive farm business. Secondly, activity-based eligibility has been implemented in Austria and it has not led to overproduction there. Instead, the small farms that have chosen that option have tended to diversify and have increased the value of what is produced on farm. For example, pig farms have started to process meat into charcuterie on farm, and other farms have expanded agritourism offerings. That is because the labour-based payments have incentivised them to expand their rural businesses, contributing to thriving rural communities.

Large and medium-sized farms would opt to continue to receive area-based payments, as they would receive more support via that route. They would not be incentivised to overproduce, and both the market conditions and cross-compliance conditions would continue to limit farms from overstocking livestock. The number of people directly employed by farms is now only 61,000, which is about half of what it used to be. Providing an option to link payments to labour would support more jobs on the land, which we desperately need in order to achieve the objectives of the bill.

My next amendments, amendments 170 and 173 to 182, would replace the concept of payment entitlements with those of assessments and allocations throughout the bill. “Entitlements” gives the impression that farms are entitled to receive public money solely for occupying land, and they are not based on any assessment. They also lead to trading entitlements, which is firmly not in the public interest. My series of amendments would modernise that antiquated system and would make it fairer and more accurate.

No, I am not saying that. I am just introducing another option. At the moment, farmers get support through a land-based payment, and I am introducing an activity-based payment. One option is that, if it makes sense for the farmer to go down the route of having people working on farm, that is the way that they would do it, but the other way would remain in place. As I said earlier, it is clear that that is working smoothly for some farmers, but we need to find a way to support very active small producers who receive absolutely nothing at the moment. That is the intention, and that is what I want to explore with the cabinet secretary.

Amendment 182 defines “allocation” as

“the amount of support to be provided”

once an area-based or activity-based assessment

“has been completed.”

Amendments 170 and 174 to 181 simply replace the word “entitlements” with “allocations” in each place.

Amendment 173 would allow for regulations on payment allocations to set a

“minimum labour requirement”

or for an

“assessment and allocation of standard labour requirements”

for those who opt to be assessed by activity.

I would appreciate hearing the Scottish Government’s responses to my amendments, and I would very much like to continue constructive discussions in this area as we move to stage 3. I will therefore not move my amendments at this stage, and I will seek to withdraw amendment 74.

I move amendment 74.

You will see what I will do when I come to move the amendments—or not.

As for supporting your definition of soil health and the objectives, I did not think that the bill was the appropriate place to put them. We need to keep the objectives really clear, but the main point is that farmers, crofters and food producers must look at soil biology as we go forward. We need to recognise that soil is a living system and understand its ecosystem, and we must have a way of supporting people through the testing processes. We know about the national test programme, but it must factor in the soil’s biological conditions. I know that many farmers and crofters are already moving towards regenerative practices, but they do not have the support to look at the soil and the impacts of their good practices.

My amendment 62 would give ministers the power to support farmers and crofters to maintain areas of land for nature

“and to prevent further biodiversity loss.”

Given that the conversion of land into farmland is one of the key drivers of biodiversity loss, it is crucial that landowning farmers, crofters and other land managers do not feel financially pressured to convert more land into farmland and that they receive some income for providing public goods by protecting wildlife and habitats, such as our iconic machair, alongside their actively farmed land. That will also be crucial in maintaining EU alignment through the 30 by 30 commitment to protecting 30 per cent of our land for nature by 2030.

There might be some concerns about land being set aside and then neglected, but the land would need to meet certain climate and nature standards as part of the enhanced conditionality of the new payment framework, and I would argue that the support that would be enabled by all my amendments in this group should not be competitive. I also suggest that it be extended to farmers, crofters and other land managers who have already set aside land and provided public goods such as restored and rewetted peatland, to reward them for previous good actions that they paid for out of their own pockets.

My amendment 142 would add a list of benefits that woodlands can provide on farms, to make it clear that planting and maintaining trees on farmland for those purposes would be eligible for support. The purposes outline some advantages of agroforestry or integrated planting, including

“providing shelter to livestock ... reducing flood risk ... reducing soil loss”

and

“reducing risks to wader birds”.

If done without proper sensitivity, tree planting on farmland can be very damaging to waders, including curlews, the UK’s most threatened breeding bird. Therefore, support should incentivise agroforestry to reduce that risk.

I also have two probing amendments in order to continue the conversation about ensuring that the right tree gets planted in the right place. Scotland is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. Native trees can and must play a significant role in realising the Scottish Government’s vision to halt nature loss by 2030, and my amendment 146 would ensure that all woodland that was supported through public funds would have a positive impact on biodiversity as well as on carbon and, where appropriate, on local amenity, too. Existing forestry legislation and guidance on such issues pertain largely to felling and to public land, which leaves gaps with regard to planting and other activities on private land, as well as the farming-forestry interface, as I have mentioned.

Amendment 146 would ensure that public funds deliver public goods and are not spent on forestry projects in a way that will have a negative impact on the environment through soil damage and/or on communities, while amendment 147 would require that any forestry project that was on land of 40 hectares or above or that would

“exceed 40 hectares if adjoined with existing woodland”

could receive support only if an environmental impact assessment had been conducted.

Spruce plantations are notorious for causing the spread of non-native invasive species through self-seeding, damaging native woodlands and high nature value grassland and jeopardising all the progress that has been made on restoring peatland, not to mention the issue of all the money that has been put into that. That is why environmental impact assessments should be a precondition of public funding for forestry projects of such size. For a matter of such importance, it is not enough to rely on guidance being followed. I am aware that there is already a threshold of 20 hectares for forestry on most land types; however, that is only guidance and, should the amendment be agreed to, I will lodge another amendment at stage 3 to change the threshold for support to 28 hectares, to align with the guidance.

I should say that I will not move the forestry amendments today; they are intended to start a conversation in advance of stage 3.

Turning to some of the other amendments in the group, I do not support Tim Eagle’s amendment 141, which seeks to enable the provision of support for “deer and game farming”. The high levels of deer throughout much of Scotland are blocking an effective response to the climate and nature emergencies. We know that deer numbers need to be reduced through culling, and we need more people working in deer stalking, as such roles are not only crucial but are key to rural communities. I would like there to be more support from the rural support budget for deer stalking instead of new support for deer farming. Furthermore, we should be eating the wild venison that is killed by necessity. If we encourage the production of more farmed deer in Scotland, there will be a glut on the market, leading to more food waste.

I worry, too, that support for game farming would largely go to wealthy grouse moor and estate owners, who already benefit the most from area-based farm support systems. The amendment, therefore, seems to run counter to several policy objectives, and I cannot support it.

I also cannot support Tim Eagle’s amendment 143, which seeks to enable support specifically for “foraged crops” to feed livestock. The list of products that can be supported already includes cereals, oilseeds, protein crops and fodder, and I am wary of increasing support for the production of livestock feed when growing food directly for humans uses less land and less energy.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 149 seeks to add “reintroduction of species” to the list of things that farmers can be compensated for if—

Rachael Hamilton’s well-intentioned amendment would insert a target of 60 per cent of the food procured by each local authority to be produced within 60 miles within three years of the bill’s royal assent. That is an admirable aim, and I fully support the intention to incentivise and support local food production and procurement. However, the target is problematic in practice for a number of reasons.

For the foreseeable future, it would be very difficult to source enough bread, pizza, most pulses, most fruit, tomatoes, peppers, sweetcorn, rice and more from within 60 miles. That is the unfortunate reality, and it will not change unless the Scottish Government increases support for local small-scale production, which my amendments 48 and 201 seek to achieve.

The next practical problem is to do with definitions. Is a sausage roll that is produced in Lanarkshire local if it is produced with Polish pork and French flour? Tracking back to ingredients is a challenge.

The next issue is that 60 miles is a long way for local authorities in the central belt but not far for isolated islands. An islands impact assessment would be needed.

Then there is the legal difficulty. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which the UK Government introduced, makes a requirement to source from a particular part of the UK illegal under the principle of non-discrimination. I would be interested in hearing whether the Scottish Government is in conversation with the UK Government about allowing the specification of locally produced food in public procurement.

In any case, such a target should be included in a statutory plan, such as the good food nation plan or the rural support plan, not in primary legislation.

I support the principle of procuring local food but I do not support the amendment. However, I would welcome a commitment from the cabinet secretary to add practical measures to the rural support plan and the good food nation plan to support the local food economy using funding from the agricultural budget. That would allow a target such as the one that Rachael Hamilton proposes to become much more achievable.

It was just one number in a grouping, not the groupings themselves.

I was just finishing.

For all those reasons, I support those amendments.