Seòmar agus comataidhean

I was just finishing.

For all those reasons, I support those amendments.

I will indicate my support for some of the amendments in the group. I support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 82, which would require ministers to make provision for publishing information about rural support that is provided. Rural land management impacts all of us, through its large impact, both positive and negative, on the environment, climate and our food supply.

For many people in Scotland, there is a sense that the wealthiest landowners receive the most public money simply for owning land, and that is unjust. For transparency’s sake, it is only right that the public can find out who is supported, how much they receive and why, and what public goods are enabled by that support.

For similar reasons, I support Richard Leonard’s amendment 13. If some landowners are not applying for support directly but are using third-party businesses to do so, the public and the public purse still have a right to know who is the ultimate recipient of that support. That would help to close any loopholes that might allow large landowners to receive support above the capping level, if they apply through more than one business.

I take on board the cabinet secretary’s point about the lack of a clear definition in Scots law of “beneficial ownership”. If we had a system, the information that would be published—thanks to Rhoda Grant’s and Richard Leonard’s amendments—could support the creation of a cadastral system for Scotland, which the Scottish Land Commission has recommended. That would be a set of records and maps that described the ownership boundaries, value and use of land, as is used in other countries such as the US and 14 EU members.

Having all that information in one place would be crucial for a carbon emissions land tax or any land-based replacement for council tax. If the information needs to be collected for those purposes anyway, there should be no reason not to publish it for transparency, provided that data protection is properly considered.

Publishing that information would also allow an external body to conduct a value-for-money assessment of the support that is provided, which I intend to propose at stage 3.

I am interested in discussing this further and in bringing together the folks in the forestry sector and the RSE to get clarity in relation to the misunderstanding of how forestry EIA regulations work. The RSE has done a tremendous body of work. It would be helpful to keep it on board and to get some kind of collaboration going with the society.

I am done.

I fully support the intention behind Richard Leonard’s amendment 91, on inspections of agricultural workers’ accommodation. For months, I have been meeting representatives of the Worker Support Centre Scotland and raising with the cabinet secretary its concerns about the exploitation of seasonal workers on large soft fruit farms. One such concern is that the housing attached to those jobs is too often of poor quality, unsafe and unhygienic.

Last year, the centre supported 63 farm workers on housing issues, including holes in caravans, damp, black mould, rodent infestation, broken toilets and windows that would not open. Clearly, that problem needs to be addressed, but, following my discussions with the cabinet secretary, I accept the Scottish Government’s position that the bill that is before us is not the right place to do that. I would appreciate it if the cabinet secretary could set out the other routes that the Government is exploring to address the issue.

My amendments in the group are probing amendments that are intended to open up the conversation about the redistribution of the agriculture support budget, which they have done. An economist turned crofter with whom I have been working calculated that a full half of all farm support payments go to just 6.6 per cent of recipients: those with the most land. My amendments in the group and those from Colin Smyth, Rhoda Grant and Beatrice Wishart in support of redistribution would help to redress that imbalance.

Redistribution would be consistent with land reform objectives to tackle the scale and concentration of land ownership. It would also be consistent with biodiversity objectives, discouraging the consolidation and standardisation of farms with little diversity, and with the desire for a diverse and resilient sector. It would also help to maintain EU alignment, since the new EU cap includes a mandatory redistributive element.

I want to underline the vital importance of achieving those policy intentions, and to impress on the Scottish Government the importance of taking on board the discussion today and the calls from numerous stakeholders for redistribution. I also want to underline that, although the cabinet secretary frequently mentions the small producers pilot, what I hear from those producers is that that pilot is not working and that that funding is not reaching small producers directly. We need to do something to address that.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that Edward Mountain’s amendments 161 and 162 and Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 163, which are about consulting on capping and tapering, are not necessary, as the bill already requires ministers to consult such persons as they consider appropriate.

On Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 159, I do not agree that a definition of payments under tier 1 is needed in the bill, as that is still being determined by the Scottish Government. The bill is a framework bill to provide flexibility for the tiers and to enable payment schemes to evolve over time.

I seek to withdraw amendment 67.

Amendment 67, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 158 not moved.

Amendment 68 moved—[Ariane Burgess].

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.