Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I will speak to amendment 53 and the other amendments in my name. I have heard what the cabinet secretary said about herbs and machinery. I accept the reassurance that she gave about machinery rings, which was the aim of that amendment. I will come back at stage 3 with an amendment with regard to herbs.

Amendment 145 is consequential to Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 144. I support her amendment in so far as it relates to venison farming. However, like others, I do not believe that wild deer should be supported through agricultural subsidies. My amendment, like Tim Eagle’s, seeks to restrict that support to venison farming.

On amendment 55, again, I hear what the cabinet secretary said and I will take her up on her offer to discuss how we can try to stop the wrong trees being planted in the wrong place and having valuable farmland lost to tree planting.

Amendment 61 relates to the section on greenhouse gases and climate change, ensuring that actions stipulated in other plans in this policy area, such as the climate adaptation plan, have influence on the legislation. The amendment tries to provide for joined-up policy making.

Amendment 63 adds a reference to

“the water holding capacity of land”

and is designed to look at flood prevention and protection. We need to look at ways in which to prevent flooding, given climate change. Farmers and crofters have a role to play, but we have to work with them. We cannot risk their crops and livelihoods being wiped out, so we must plan flood responses with them and ensure that Government assistance is available to do that.

Ariane Burgess’s amendment 62 causes me some concern. I am afraid that we may end up returning to the days of slipper farmers, when people were paid to do nothing productive on their land in return for public funding. It did not bring any benefit at all—quite the opposite. It had a negative impact on nature.

The other amendments in this group seek to add items to schedule 1, and I will support those where appropriate.

I have just done that.

The small producers support fund is tiny and does not provide the amount of support that is required in that area. Will the cabinet secretary expand on how that could be developed to provide more support—and greater equity of support—for small producers?

In seeking to ensure that the code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture is a regulation, amendments 84 to 86 would change the way in which the code is produced and consulted on and scrutinised by the Parliament. The bill is enabling legislation, and the codes and associated provisions are where the information underpinning the funding and the conditions attached to that funding are laid out. The provisions must be scrutinised to ensure that funding is not misused or needlessly withheld.

I move amendment 84.

Amendment 66 seeks to ensure that any conditionality is

“proportionate to the size of land where the activity is taking place.”

The legislation will give funding support and will rightly impose conditions on that support. Amendment 66 seeks to ensure that that conditionality is proportionate to the size of the enterprise concerned. I recognise that there might be better ways of doing that, so I will listen carefully to any comments.

I am supportive of Brian Whittle’s amendments in this group.

My amendment 66 does not seek to do what the cabinet secretary suggests. A lot of the conditions that could easily be met by large farms with lots of employees cannot be met by small farmers or crofters—single-handed businesses. Will the cabinet secretary reassure me that the conditions that are placed on any support will be proportionate to the size and scale of the operation?

Amendment 82 would ensure that information about the support provided, its purpose and the amount of support that is given must be published. This is public money, and it is in the public interest to have transparency about the levels of support that are given.

Amendment 83 seeks to ensure that such a report must also include progress towards the objectives of the bill and that that information should be broken down into the tiers in which the Government provides support.

Transparency is essential when public money is being spent, and I hope that amendments 82 and 83 gain support from the committee. I also support the other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 82.

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.