Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am aware that, for instance, Wick harbour needs substantial investment that would have been coming out of the funding in the current financial year. Did you look to make that underspend available to Wick harbour?

I will direct my second question, which is about private finance and investment, to Ailsa Raeburn, although I know that several people on the panel had something to say about that. What does private finance have to gain by investment in natural capital? The fear is, as was stated before, that it will cause greenwashing and inflation in land prices. Therefore, it looks as though land is being sold on to make profits for private financiers, for example. The other concern is that selling things on could tie the hands of land managers. We all know that things change very quickly and when we see different actions taking place, that could have a negative impact.

Where are the benefits for biodiversity and for the private financiers? What is there that will mean that they get involved in this kind of finance?

Thank you, convener. I have a couple of quick finance-related questions. I will direct the first one to Paul Walton because he talked about funding for biodiversity and how it was often insufficient in the crofting and small farming areas, which could lead to abandonment.

The previous schemes tended to reward farms and the like that had the greatest number of features or habitats that could be restored or protected. That meant that smallholdings were left out. What can we do with the new scheme to ensure that that does not happen and that places that have the best practices are rewarded and encouraged to keep their features?

We have heard differing evidence from stakeholders about whether the code of practice and the definition of sustainable and regenerative agriculture should be written into the bill or should be guidance. If people are content for it to be guidance, is section 7 of the bill all right, or should it be tightened up to provide more scrutiny?

With regard to how the code of practice is devised, should the regulations be on the face of the bill or is the bill okay as it stands at the moment, with the regulations being brought to the Parliament by subordinate legislation? Should the regulations and the code of practice come in front of the Parliament?

I am sorry—I am not putting this very clearly. Should the mechanism for drawing up the code of practice be included in the bill, or is it okay to do that by regulation? Should the code of practice that is subsequently produced be subject to greater scrutiny by the Parliament? We do not yet know that, given that the regulations have yet to be devised.

I fear that this conversation will be a wee bit like the last one in that some people are telling us that they want the wording in the bill because they need to know what to expect and others are telling us to leave it for the code of practice because that can be changed over time. Secondary to that, does the bill provide the right level of scrutiny for the code of practice?

Section 10 is entitled “Refusal or recovery of support where in the public interest”. What does that include? When would funding be refused or recovered?

I have a tiny supplementary question on that. You talked about the sunset clause and when the support plan has to be put in place. Should we use the bill to remove the sunset clause to give more time to ensure that we do not end up with unintended consequences?

We should be clear that the code of practice will be subject to the negative procedure. The Government will devise the code, which means that, although the Government can consult on it, it will simply be laid before Parliament; if the Parliament does not like it, we will have to lodge a motion to annul. It is my understanding, because it is one of the bill’s objectives, that the whole funding package for farming depends on the code of practice being in place. That would make it very difficult for a committee to annul it, because doing so might delay support for farming.

There are other procedures that can be used. There is the affirmative procedure, under which the legislation is laid and voted on by Parliament, again on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, while other pieces of legislation have been subject to what we call a super-affirmative procedure. Under that, a draft is laid before Parliament; the committee scrutinises it and then makes comments back to the Government; and the Government either takes or does not take the committee’s comments on board before we vote on it.

Those are what you might call the different tests. I suppose that I am asking you whether the negative process, which can involve a move to annul, is sufficient for any legislation on which farming payments depend. Should we look at using the super-affirmative procedure for those parts of the legislation, the codes and so on that are coming through via subordinate legislation if farming payments are dependent on them?

We have also heard about how complex the consultation is. How do we engage stakeholders? What went really wrong with the HPMA process was that it was top down. It imposed things that people largely did not understand or know enough about. There was a huge lump of policy, and nobody disaggregated it and spoke to people about the impact on them. How do we avoid that? This seems to be just the same: it is a big, top-down exercise that does not involve the people on whom it will impact. I fear that it will get the same reaction, given that there is a huge amount of distrust out there.