Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 76 will ensure that, before making regulations under section 13, the Scottish ministers must consult such persons as they consider

“to be interested in or affected by provisions in this section”,

rather than simply those the Government deems appropriate.

Amendment 80 will ensure that grazing committees and, indeed, other co-ops can be collectively supported. Many crofting activities are carried out as part of a collective. Currently, it is difficult to access funding on that basis. It is important to allow individuals who are part of a grazing committee or co-op to apply for support in their own right under a different claim—obviously claiming only once for any activity. That would allow them more access to environmental funding when, collectively, they would be better able to compete against large land holdings, for which support is dependent on the number of features protected. Those with small crofts or farms have often been locked out of environmental support projects because of that, and amendment 80 attempts to right that wrong.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 171 seeks to do something similar to my amendment 76, and I will listen to the thoughts of the committee and the cabinet secretary. I hope that there will be support for one of those two amendments.

Amendment 81 is consequential on amendment 80.

I move amendment 76.

The cabinet secretary is surely aware that an awful lot of trees are being planted in the wrong places, on good arable land. We need to do something about that. Obviously, we cannot do everything about it through the bill, but we can stop public money going to support that activity. Will the cabinet secretary meet me prior to stage 3 to try to find a way of stopping public money being used to support that wrong activity?

Colin Smyth sends his apologies. He has to attend another committee meeting, so I have agreed to speak to his amendments.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 135 would require support schemes to be consistent with the rural support plan. The Government has a responsibility to spend money effectively and in the public interest. A link with the rural support plan would allow it to demonstrate a clear rationale for the use of public money. However, the amendment would also provide flexibility and allow for departure from the plan, should there be reasons for that, but with the requirement that ministers set out those reasons and why the support remained consistent with the bill’s overall objectives.

My amendment 50 would ensure that the Scottish Government would have to consult before making regulations under section 4 to amend schedule 1. Schedule 1 lays out the things that can be supported under the bill. Although members may, at this stage, seek to add items that can be supported, the Government will be able to add other items in the future. I will not repeat my arguments for greater scrutiny. However, amendment 50 would ensure that, when items were added or, indeed, taken away, there would be effective consultation with those who would be affected by any changes that were made to the schedule.

I support Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 134. Farming is not a short-term business, and security of support is necessary to enable farmers and crofters to provide the public goods that we all require. I believe that the other amendments in the group could also strengthen the bill.

I have taken on board the assurances that the cabinet secretary has provided, so I will seek to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 73, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 12 agreed to.

Section 13—Regulations about support

Amendment 72 seeks to ensure that people who claim support know the expectations that are placed on them in return for that support before they apply. The amendment ensures that the reasons why support could be refused or recovered in the public interest are clear to all those who apply.

I believe that there are times when Government should recover support that has been paid. I therefore cannot support Edward Mountain’s amendment 169, but I believe that the reasons for doing so must be understood.

I have nothing to add. I have listened to what the cabinet secretary has said and will not press amendment 82.

Amendment 82, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 13 and 83 not moved.

Section 17 agreed to.

Section 18—Processing of information

Amendments 14 and 15 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 184 not moved.

Section 18, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 19 to 25 agreed to.

After section 25

On that matter, would there be a delay? If you are using that power, there are pretty exceptional market conditions and people are quite concerned. If there was a delay between the initial three months and an extension of that scheme under the powers allowed, that could cause issues for those who are really dependent on that support.

Amendment 73 seeks to extend the length of time for which exceptional market conditions support can continue. Although it would be hoped that such occurrences would be rare and short lived, they could run beyond the three months that is allowed for in the bill. My amendment would increase that time to six months. In doing so, it would not prescribe that every scheme would run for six months; it would simply allow it to do so should the need arise. I hope that the power would very seldom require to be used, but it is needed to provide stability in difficult times.

I move amendment 73.

Given what the cabinet secretary has said and the reassurance that she has given, I will not waste the committee’s time by moving amendment 89.

Amendment 158, in the name of Colin Smyth, reflects some stakeholders’ concerns about the capping of higher tiers that allow for carbon sequestration and nature restoration, which might mean that those public goods are less well funded. They argue that, in the higher tiers, public policy benefits increase as payments increase, meaning that capping the limit in those tiers might have unintended consequences. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary can assure us that capping will not reduce public goods and will indicate how we can maximise public benefit through carbon sequestration and nature restoration in a way that allows every holding to contribute and play its part.

My amendment 69 seeks to use redistribution to ensure that small-scale producers can afford to operate. We know that small producers provide benefits to local food production and that their methods are often more carbon neutral and nature friendly than those of others. I spoke last week about the uneven distribution of funding and about how the most challenged areas receive the least, while the least challenged areas receive the most. Many small producers cannot afford to pay themselves a living wage. We must ensure that all agricultural work is fairly paid, but we must focus on small producers to encourage them to stay in business.