Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am happy to work with the cabinet secretary, so I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 149 not moved.

Amendment 63 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 5—Funding third party support

Amendment 64 moved—[Rhoda Grant].

Okay—it is just that I have amendment 157 in front of me.

Amendment 139 moved—[Tim Eagle].

I agree with the minister’s point and therefore will not move the amendment.

Amendment 143 not moved.

Amendments 201, 51 and 52 moved—[Ariane Burgess]—and agreed to.

Amendment 6 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 53 not moved.

Amendment 7 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.

Amendment 144 moved—[Beatrice Wishart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 145 moved—[Rhoda Grant].

Good morning. Amendment 157 would place a reporting requirement on ministers to assess the performance of functions delegated by ministers within a year of the bill coming into force. The intention behind amendment 157 is to ensure that organisations to which functions of the bill have been delegated are held accountable for their performance. It would provide a means of tracking their progress on key functions of the bill and would offer ministers the opportunity to assess whether delegation was the correct approach.

We know how important accountability is for the effective operation of legislation. Amendment 157 would improve the level of accountability in relation to not only ministers but all stakeholders who were involved in implementing the bill’s provisions.

Okay—is that mine? [Interruption.]

Is it not amendment 157, convener?

All the amendments in the group are in my name, so I will try to rattle through them.

The group is about clarification. I do not quite understand where we are between guidance and statutory or legal duties.

Amendment 151 would clarify the guidance referred to in section 7, which is confusing on how the code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture could be used. The mention of the code in that context should be removed.

Amendments 152 and 153 seek to change the bill to ensure that guidance on a particular scheme or purpose is laid before the Scottish Parliament and published. The bill allows for one or the other. If the committee agrees to amendment 152, it will need to consider amendment 153, as the phrase “(or both)” at the end of section 7(2)(a) will no longer be required.

Amendments 154 and 155 would ensure that guidance that is produced under section 7 remains as guidance or advice rather than stringent regulation that must be complied with. The section states that provision will be made that specifies

“the extent to which compliance with guidance on a particular topic”

relates to

“a statutory duty or condition of support”,

as well as

“the admissibility or evidential value of the guidance in legal proceedings.”

Therefore, the removal of sections 7(2)(c) and 7(2)(d) would assure farmers and crofters that guidance will remain just that, rather than a statutory or regulatory prism.

Apologies, convener—I forgot to make a declaration of interests at the beginning of the meeting. I am still new, so I am not sure whether I should have done so. I refer members back to what I said last week, when I declared an interest as a small farmer.

Amendment 141 is an attempt to get a few slight changes into the bill in order to clarify some points for farmers. It seeks to include the farming of deer and game in the bill’s definition of agriculture in order to support deer and game farmers in continuing to produce those products. Such farming contributes to the overall production of high-quality food as any other form of livestock farming does; indeed, at a recent event, we had venison on the table. It would not be logical to specifically exclude that type of farming, when the farming of other animals would qualify for support under section 4 of the bill. I add, for the avoidance of any confusion, that amendment 141 relates only to farmed livestock and does not make provision to support the taking of wild game.

Amendment 143 would include

“cereals and oilseeds, peas and beans”

and

“other foraged crops”

in the bill’s definition of “agriculture” and, by doing so, would support farmers in continuing to produce those products. As with amendment 141, those are important categories that are, at present, missing from the bill, and they should be included so that we can recognise their contribution to Scottish agriculture and make the list more comprehensive.

Amendment 148 aims to highlight one of the key challenges that I know farmers and land managers across Scotland face. Access to land and the right to roam are privileges that we all enjoy in Scotland; however, with that right comes a responsibility to ensure that we respect the land that we are accessing, and my amendment would add the word “responsible” to the provisions on supporting access to land, just to clarify that all access to land should be carried out responsibly.

Farmers and land managers are constantly dealing with cases of irresponsible use of land that cost them time and money and which in some cases can lead to harm to livestock. Examples can range from leaving a field gate open or littering along a footpath, to livestock worrying and fly-tipping, and the inclusion of the word “responsible” in the legislation would underline our commitment to tackling such behaviour and encouraging greater accountability among those who access farmland for any purpose.

Amendment 149 would enable compensation to be provided to farmers in respect of additional costs incurred and income lost as a consequence of reintroduced species. The amendment aims to recognise the challenges that reintroduced species have thrown up for the agricultural sector and provides an opportunity to mitigate them without directly impacting our efforts to successfully re-establish certain species in Scotland. It would support Scotland’s farmers, provide them with reassurance that the impact of reintroduced species on their ability to produce food is being properly assessed and help to alleviate wider industry concerns that the impact of reintroduced species is not being given adequate consideration in policy making.

I understand that the prevention of significant agricultural damage is already covered in previous agricultural legislation. However, amendment 149 has been written in conjunction with farmers who have a more developed understanding of the impact of reintroduced species on farming activities. Farmers have made it clear that they want to see those provisions on the face of the bill, and I am absolutely committed to ensuring that their views are heard in today’s proceedings.

It was not my intention to cause added confusion. Picking up on Rachael Hamilton’s points, my purpose in bringing that up was to make sure that the guidance really is guidance, rather than statutory provisions. I say that because my experience is that many farmers were worried in the past about environmental schemes such as AECS—the agri-environment climate scheme—whereby the regulations were such that they prohibited them from accessing the scheme for fear that something was going to go wrong. It was about making sure that we support farmers. I understand what the cabinet secretary is saying and I will not press amendment 151, but I would like to move amendments 152 and 153.

Amendment 151, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 152 and 153 moved—[Tim Eagle]—and agreed to.

Amendments 154 and 155 not moved.

Amendment 156 moved—[Beatrice Wishart].