Seòmar agus comataidhean

Sustainable and regenerative agriculture is included in the bill as a primary aim, yet it is not defined in the bill, and stakeholders were quite clear that they would prefer it to be. If it is a primary aim of the bill, the cabinet secretary should surely not be treating it as an optional extra that people can do or not do. Making the code a regulation would mean that there would have to be consultation on it, which would ensure that everyone would have an input. People could be given a suite of options that they could carry out—there would be no need for a prescriptive approach whereby certain things had to be done by everybody—which would ensure that nothing was missed and that people would understand what was required of them in order to access funding.

Therefore, I press amendment 84.

My amendment 77 would ensure that regulations regarding the provision of support are made under the affirmative procedure. I believe that, when we pass enabling legislation, the subsequent secondary legislation must be scrutinised.

Amendment 87 would ensure that the code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture is subject to affirmative procedures for that same reason; as is the case for amendment 90, on regulations for continuing professional development.

All those amendments would ensure parliamentary scrutiny on regulations and ensure that ministers consulted before regulating in those areas.

Other amendments in the group seek to increase the scrutiny of the legislation that will flow from the bill, and I am supportive of that. Tim Eagle’s amendment 172 is like my amendment 77, but I believe that mine is the better amendment.

Amendment 20 includes food security in the bill as part of the overarching objectives. There are several reasons for that. As we have seen with the war in Ukraine, such events—indeed, world events—can hamper our access to food.

Amendment 21 deals with local food production. We know that food miles create carbon. Therefore, the closer we are to food security and the fewer food miles we use, the better things are. We also know that access to locally produced food is more sustainable and cost effective for communities. Those two amendments mean that the objective in section 1(b) would read: “food security, and the production of high-quality food access to locally produced food for every person in Scotland.”

Amendment 26 would insert a new overarching objective to ensure that rural businesses have sufficient funds and resources to enable them to provide fair work conditions. We often hear from crofters and small farm enterprises that it is impossible for them to make a living from their agricultural activity. That is in part because of the unequal way in which we currently distribute support funding. I hope that later amendments will go some way towards changing that. It is often the smaller enterprises that sequestrate more carbon and provide higher natural benefits. Therefore, when distributing support funding, we should look to provide a fairer income for those small businesses.

Amendment 27 recognises the carbon and nature benefits of small crofts and small farms, and it seeks to ensure that future support recognises that and provides them with adequate support. Currently, producers on less than 3 hectares—specifically those in horticulture—are excluded from support. Although the small producers pilot fund is welcome, it has been allocated only £1 million in 2024. There are 20,000 small producers, of whom only 7,000 are registered for rural payments. They receive, on average, £143 per year per hectare for businesses under 30 hectares, whereas every hectare of region 1 land receives £223 per hectare a year. That is simply unfair, and the new scheme needs to address that. Small and diverse agricultural units can deliver high land productivity at levels that are well above those delivered by larger-scale monocropping. They also store more carbon and have a higher nature value—all things that we should be supporting.

With regard to the other amendments in the group, I am puzzled by Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 94—I cannot understand why we should not be aiming for high-quality food. I understand what she is trying to do with amendment 97, which is very similar to my amendments.

I am also puzzled by Ariane Burgess’s amendment 24. The bill is about the distribution of farm subsidies. If that funding is more widely distributed, it could damage the industry and, with it, our push towards net zero. Therefore, I do not think that I can support that amendment, but I am happy to listen to her reasoning in that regard. I am also puzzled by amendment 25. Again, I will listen with interest to see what is meant by it.

I have a lot of sympathy for Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 96 but, because it would knock out my amendments, I will not be able to support it.

I support Colin Smyth’s amendments in this group.

Amendment 26 is framed in order to encourage the distribution of support in a way that allows certain people to make a living. There are people working on the land who are producing food or providing public goods in relation to carbon and nature restoration, but who cannot make a living and are being forced out of business. Amendment 26 was designed to ensure fairer distribution of funds so that those very necessary and welcome businesses can continue to thrive.

The purpose of amendment 64 is to try to grasp the impact of third-party investment on land management. Greenwashing is causing real problems in our fight against climate change, and it is becoming more widespread. Polluters often seek to fund carbon sequestration to allow them to continue their pollution while portraying themselves as being carbon neutral or even better.

I learned recently that stopping deforestation generates carbon credits. How on earth can we meet our net zero obligations when we are already using our current natural capital to increase pollution? The market is unmanaged and we must get a grip on it. Amendment 64 would allow us at least to see the scale of so-called green investment in Scotland and take steps to prevent our land from being abused by polluters.

I support the other amendments in the group that seek to improve reporting on the objectives of the bill and to measure success or otherwise. If we are to meet those objectives, we must measure progress towards them.

My amendments 43 and 46 require there to be joined-up thinking between policy areas. Agricultural policy should not be developed in a silo; it must contribute to other policy areas such as healthy diet, climate and biodiversity outcomes, and resilient and thriving rural communities.

Amendment 43 seeks to incorporate the good food nation plan into the list of matters that would be considered by the rural support plan. It seems obvious to me that that should be in the bill. Given the assurances that have been given by the cabinet secretary and the comments that she has made, I will not move amendment 43.

Amendment 46 relates to land reform. I have heard what the cabinet secretary has said, but I think that she has misunderstood the aim of my amendment. Our land ownership model is regressive—that is widely understood and accepted—which is why the Parliament is considering another bill on land reform. However, it is difficult to see how land reform legislation will move the dial when other policies pop up and encourage large-scale private land ownership.

Given that this is the crucial part of the bill, it would be good to see drafts. I understand that the members who have lodged amendments to this part of the bill will see that, but others, such as myself, who have not lodged amendments at this stage, would be interested to see draft amendments so that we can scrutinise them properly. At stage 3, we are in a take-it-or-leave-it situation, which is not appropriate for this scale of amendment to a bill, because it really is about the operation of the legislation. I urge the minister to share drafts with the committee and allow us to take evidence from her and from stakeholders.

Convener, can I intervene on the cabinet secretary before Colin Smyth winds up?

I believe that the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill needs to have regard to legislation in the same subject area that will impact it—and it will have a big impact on land reform.

As I said, we tend to encourage large-scale ownership in the way that we distribute agricultural funding. For example, 50 per cent of the agricultural budget goes to the top 7 per cent of recipients. To me, that seems to fly in the face of the land reform agenda. Therefore, I believe that that agenda needs to be taken into account when we are looking at how we distribute agricultural subsidies and that the subsidy system should not set up any false incentives that perpetuate our uneven distribution of land.

The other amendments in the group seem to be fair. I cannot support Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 131, because I think that it is important that we follow EU policy where it is possible and where it is in our interests to do so. The EU is a competitor and it is one of our biggest markets. It is important that we continue to be able to sell into that market.

I am grateful to the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak, and I am grateful to Derek Noble for pursuing PE1974.

I share the committee’s disappointment at the cabinet secretary’s response, because it repeats what has been said before. It takes no notice of the fact that residents on the other side of the Stromeferry bypass need to cross the bypass for hospital care and secondary education and to support the economy of the area. That is a major issue on the road. The alternative route takes six hours, and that cuts off the area’s economy. It means that someone would get to Glasgow and Edinburgh sooner than they would get to their local hospital. It is a 130-mile detour. You have to go all the way back to the east coast to come back west again. The Scottish Government’s response is so disappointing, because it just seems to be saying no, despite the evidence, and there is no right of appeal.

In a way, the response adds insult to injury by talking about priority bus routes and cycle lanes, because there are no buses other than the school buses, and a cycle lane would take up the total width of the road. There is no option to put those things in place. Money is available for that, but there is no money available for the very basics.

I have some figures from 2017. The costs varied from £37 million to £129 million. Using the Scottish Parliament information centre’s inflator, I note that those costs would now be £46 million to £159 million, but we know that the costs of roads and inflation are much greater than that. Even if we took the figure of £159 million, Highland Council received £33.6 million of capital funding this year. How many years using its full capital budget allocation would it take for it to fix the road? It is absolutely not feasible.

The Scottish Government’s response has basically said to those communities that it is tough, that Highland Council cannot afford to do the work because the Government does not fund it adequately and that it is washing its hands of the whole situation. That is not a sustainable position.

I ask the committee not to close the petition but to look at another option to appeal to the Scottish Government to work with Highland Council to try to find a funding option that would allow the road to be improved. It will take the Scottish Government to provide Highland Council with that funding or ways of accessing it.

The Government might also want to involve Network Rail. We are talking about the road, but the rail line is just beside the road. The road saved the rail line, to an extent, after the most recent major rockfalls. In fact, the rail line was used as a temporary road to avoid the long detour. However, if the Government is washing its hands of this, it is only a matter of time. When there is a big rockfall, the road will close and there will be nothing to protect the rail line. We could lose both the road and the rail connection. I do not know whether the committee has spoken to Network Rail to see whether it has similar concerns. Could that help with some of the capital funding?

Highland Council provides some capital funding. I know that it is struggling at the moment, but all three bodies could look at the problem. If we are looking to Highland Council to sort it out, it would take its capital funding for the best part of a decade. That is just not going to happen.