Seòmar agus comataidhean

I suspect, minister, that your answer to this will be yes, but I want to express the seriousness of the issue. It is about monitoring the impact of the scheme, particularly on those small producers that may be just over the 10-cow limit. I expect that you will monitor the impact, but, in all seriousness, once the policy leaves the committee and Parliament, you are charged with full responsibility for it. Can we get a guarantee that you will monitor it carefully and that, if problems come up—as Beatrice Wishart just suggested—you will bring it back to Parliament or give us an update via letter or something, to say what could be done to change it in the future?

First, I will talk about Mark Ruskell’s amendments. He lodged them very quickly, but they exactly represent the concerns about part 2 of the bill that we heard. It is not often that we hear such uniform concern from various stakeholders, but it is what was apparent.

I like what Mark Ruskell has done. My personal preference—I urge any Opposition member in the committee to consider this—is that we should say at stage 2, “Delete this, go back and think again.” The cabinet secretary and the civil servants behind the scenes should go back, because there is clearly a problem here. Various amendments are floating around, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not. Fundamentally, Mark Ruskell is right to push to delete part 2 of the bill at stage 2. Rather than amending part 2 in a piecemeal way, let us have a proper debate on its provisions once the Government has taken more advice from stakeholders ahead of stage 3.

My amendment 313 is effectively a non-regression clause that would retain the protections that are currently in place, should we choose not to delete part 2 today. However, as I said, my preference is that we delete part 2 at this point, so I fully support Mark Ruskell’s amendments 1, 2 and 3.

But which stakeholder is it? My understanding is that most stakeholders originally thought that there would be a much greater list of options.

You have it. It is on your website. You have an expanded list that, I think, ARIOB members proposed to you.

Is it not quite crude to look at farms in that way? Not only do we have enhanced greening under tier 2, but many farms are also in the Scottish rural development programme, the agri-environment climate scheme and so on, and some farms are organic. Every farm will be doing its own environmental work, and I think that many farmers, crofters and smallholders are doing a lot of good environmental work out there.

This goes back to my earlier frustration. If there had been an expanded options list under tier 2, farmers might have been able to pick exactly what worked on their farm, to the benefit of the nature on that farm, rather than having a smaller group of options, which might restrict them.

When it comes to farm viability, I have two questions. First, are you looking to go above the 7 per cent figure at any point in the future? Secondly, do you foresee introducing more and different options before the 7 per cent requirement comes into effect in 2027?

If we were to vote against it today, that could be a problem.

My amendment 177 touches on a point that was discussed in the previous group. As drafted, the bill allows ministers, by regulation, to set targets that relate to the natural environment. It currently requires a number of Scottish statutory instruments containing regulations for setting such targets to be laid before the Parliament within 12 months of section 1 of the bill coming into force. Amendment 177 removes that requirement, because I do not believe that time should be the driving force here. Instead, we need to ensure that the targets that are set are well considered and are not driven by an arbitrary deadline. I am not trying to stop what we are trying to do; I am trying to ensure that, as I said was important earlier, we are taking communities with us. I completely agree with Mark Ruskell’s point that targets are only as good as the plans to deliver them. That is the critical point that we need to get right, not a timeframe, which is why I have suggested that that be removed.

My amendment 183 is a drafting amendment relating to my amendment 184, which relates to the review that the bill requires ministers to carry out of how the targets that they create by regulations are operating. When carrying out a review, ministers must seek and have regard to views on the targets set under, and topics set out in, new section 2C(1) of the 2004 act, introduced by section 1(3) of the bill. Amendment 184 would mean that the people giving those views would have to include those who can represent the views of land managers. That would ensure that biodiversity targets are informed by practical, on-the-ground knowledge from land managers and community bodies, as well as scientific experts. I believe that that would make targets more deliverable, regionally relevant and supported by those responsible for implementation.

My amendment 187 relates to the process described in the bill for setting or amending targets or adjusting topics. Before making regulations, ministers must carry out some tasks, and my amendment adds to that list of tasks. Ministers will need to both seek and have regard to views from someone who ministers consider to be representative of the interests of land managers, to ensure input from those delivering the targets.

Through both amendments 184 and 187 I am trying to ensure that the people on the ground who will ultimately implement the targets are involved in the decisions on what goes on higher up and form part of that target-setting process.

My amendment 189 also relates to the process for setting targets. Although the bill requires ministers to carry out a number of tasks, it allows ministers not to seek advice if the regulations they are making relate to a review of existing regulations. My amendment deletes that provision, because I believe that it is important that a consultation be conducted with affected parties if changes are being proposed.

My amendments 190, 191 and 192 are drafting amendments relating to amendment 187.

My amendment 312 requires that, when setting targets under section 1, ministers must have regard to the importance of local food production and domestic food security, support local food producers and consider the impact on future food security. It also makes sure that targets will not result in a decline in the beef and dairy herd numbers or encourage a reduction in red meat and dairy consumption.

Scotland’s future food security faces a delicate balance. It is a case of ensuring that we have enough supply to match demand and avoid reliance on foreign imports. The fragility of the supply was emphasised by the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers earlier this year, which warned that beef supplies had reached a critical point. To ensure that we meet future food supply needs in Scotland, we need more cows, not fewer—around 80,000 more, according to Quality Meat Scotland. However, this year, farmers were faced with a worrying prospect when the Scottish Government’s climate change adviser recommended a 30 per cent drop in meat consumption and a 30 per cent cut in sheep and cattle numbers in order to hit climate change targets by 2045.

Will you look into it?

Gosh—it is all about eagles this morning.

I have been on Mull a few times and the matter has not come up, but I recognise that there might be some tourism benefits from the reintroduction of such species. That is why I have said clearly that I am not opposing species reintroduction. I was in the Western Isles over the summer and, as I went down through the Uists, I had pretty much the same conversation with crofters over and over again about how traditional agricultural practices were being hurt by white-tailed eagles. Interestingly, however, very few crofters said, “I just want to kill them all.” They all said, “We just need help and support where our businesses are being damaged.”

This is the point that I was about to come on to. Scotland currently operates a limited support scheme for losses to sea eagles and for certain beaver-related impacts. I mention those because I think that they are relevant—and we could expand the scheme to other species. Farmers and crofters repeatedly report that the scheme is slow and bureaucratic and does not come close to covering the real costs of long-term disruption. My amendment 268 would take the matter further by ensuring that, where reintroduced or recovering species create genuine, evidenced losses, those who steward the land are properly supported.

In both amendments 267 and 268 I am trying to strike the balance that I think rural Scotland needs between meeting the ambitions in the bill and ensuring that small, rural and, often, family businesses are not harmed to the extent that we exacerbate rural depopulation. If the cabinet secretary is minded to discuss that with me in more depth prior to stage 3, I would be happy not to press the amendments today.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?