Seòmar agus comataidhean

Ariane Burgess has articulated better than I could some of the issues with the amendment. I absolutely support the aspirations behind what Rachael Hamilton seeks to achieve, but the bill is not the appropriate place for it. The appropriate place would be discussions that we take forward on the good food nation plans.

As Rachael Hamilton highlighted, we discussed targets. Procurement is always a tricky area because there are so many things to consider between what is reserved and what is devolved. It is not an easy issue for us to fix. We have been considering the setting of targets and objectives through the good food nation plan. It is the first iteration of that plan, and it will develop as we get more data and more information that we can use to populate more targets and further objectives.

I ask the committee not to support amendment 200. Although I support the overall aspirations behind it, I think that discussions on the matter should take place as part of the development of the good food nation plans.

Absolutely. We are open to having a further discussion on that. By no means are we setting up a payment scheme here. The measures in the bill that we are discussing today will allow us potentially to provide support in the future. I hope that we will engage and have further discussion on that, and I am more than happy to pick that up with the member.

Amendment 141 seeks to amend paragraph 1 of schedule 1, which sets out examples of agricultural activities that might be supported by us in the future. As we have heard from Tim Eagle, the amendment adds “deer and game farming” to that list of agricultural activities. That is important, given the importance of both of those types of farming to a diverse agricultural industry, so I ask the committee to support amendment 141.

Amendment 142 seeks to add

“providing shelter to livestock ... reducing flood risk ... reducing soil loss”

and

“reducing risks to wader birds, including curlew”

among the “references to agriculture” in the bill. Support for those purposes is already covered by paragraphs 1 and 15 of schedule 1, but I am happy to support amendment 142.

Amendment 143 seeks to add

“cereals and oilseeds, peas and beans, other foraged crops”

among the “references to agriculture”. That provision is similar to amendment 140, which has been moved by Emma Roddick and which is more comprehensive than amendment 143. Given that, I would ask Tim Eagle not to move amendment 143.

Amendment 51 seeks to amend schedule 1, which sets out the range of support that can be provided for the production of agricultural products. The amendment expands the range of outcomes that support will achieve by adding support for the transition to sustainable land management. I am happy to support that amendment.

Amendment 52 seeks to amend schedule 1 by adding “wool” to the list of products in paragraph 3(3). Wool is an important and sustainable ancillary product of the agricultural industry. I ask the committee to support amendment 52.

Amendment 53 seeks to amend schedule 1 by adding “herbs” and “machinery”. I have no issue with adding herbs to the list of products that can be supported, but I have concerns similar to those that were raised by Ariane Burgess in relation to adding machinery to the list, as it is not an agricultural product. I should point out that it is already possible for us to provide support in respect of machinery under paragraph 7 of schedule 1. That would include investing in rural businesses and co-operatives, which would include support for machinery rings. I would ask Rhoda Grant not to move amendment 53, perhaps with a view to making a change to cover herbs at stage 3.

Amendment 7 seeks to add “poultry meat and eggs” to the list of products in paragraph 3(3) of schedule 1, and amendment 144 seeks to add “venison” to that list. The Government is committed to supporting the poultry, broiler, egg and venison sectors, so I ask the committee to support amendments 7 and 144.

Amendment 145 would amend paragraph 3(4) of schedule 1 to provide that people would not be able to be supported under the terms of paragraph 3(2) if they produced venison only as an “ancillary activity”. I do not believe that that change would support the venison sector, and I am not entirely sure of the reasoning behind the amendment, so I look forward to hearing more information about it. At the moment, though, I ask the committee not to support amendment 145.

Amendment 54 would amend schedule 1 to require that preference be given to those involved in “primary production activities” when assistance was provided under paragraph 4 for those producing or processing food. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of schedule 1 already provide for support for primary producers, and our support priorities will, of course, be set out in the rural support plan when we publish it in due course.

However, amendment 54 pre-empts the decisions that we will want to make with the sector as part of the co-development work that we are undertaking. Through that approach, we will work out when it is appropriate to give preference to primary producers and when it is not, for a legitimate reason. I will give an example to highlight some of the potential issues with the amendment. It could result in less support being available to food processors, despite the valuable contribution that they make to our Scottish food and drink industry, so I ask the committee not to support amendment 54.

Amendment 146 seeks to restrict the support that could be given in the future for creating new woodland. The Scottish ministers must already have regard to the forestry strategy when we exercise our functions in relation to sustainable forest management, and the strategy’s principles must be adhered to when we develop any forestry support, including any support that will be provided under the bill. The underlying principles behind amendment 146 would limit the support that we could provide, even if there was a good and legitimate reason for us to provide support, such as the protection of jobs in rural communities. However, I appreciate the overall objective that Ariane Burgess is trying to achieve, and I am keen to strengthen our commitment to creating more sustainable Scottish woodland, so I ask her not to move amendment 146, to allow me to consider the proposals further and work with her ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 55 seeks to amend paragraph 5(1)(c) of schedule 1 to restrict the types of available forestry support for agroforestry activities on arable land to only “hedges and wind breaks”. Although I completely understand the concerns that have led to the amendment being lodged, it would prevent agroforestry systems on all arable land, and some such land could be suitable for a mixed production approach. Paragraph 5(1)(c) provides support to farmers for the implementation of agroforestry systems, which are critical to integrating trees on farms while maintaining primary agricultural production and offering additional benefits to arable businesses, including through carbon capture, enhanced biodiversity and business diversification. Given that clarification, I hope that Rhoda Grant will not move amendment 55. If she does, I encourage the committee not to support it.

Section 6 will enable us to provide future support in different forms, such as grants, loans or guarantees, and it will also enable us to then put conditions on that support. It is deliberately broadly drafted to provide maximum flexibility and to enable the Government and Parliament to future proof the provisions introduced by the bill.

Amendments 202 and 203, in the name of Brian Whittle, seek to prioritise support for different activities. I have been consistently clear that there is no contradiction between high-quality food production and producing food in a way that works for climate and nature. Amendments 202 and 203 directly contradict that and fly in the face of what we have tried to set out. The powers in section 6 are already broad enough to enable us to prioritise

“primary production of food and drink products”

in the manner intended, if it is right to do so. I do not consider amendments 202 and 203 to be helpful additions to the bill, because they would probably confuse things rather than help understanding. I therefore ask the committee not to support them.

Amendment 66 would impose conditions on how we deliver future support. Although I understand the intention behind the amendment, which Rhoda Grant lodged, it does not work, because the purposes for which support can be provided extend far beyond land. Examples that highlight that are existing cross-compliance statutory management requirements, such as those that relate to animal health and welfare, food and feed, safety and traceability, and the requirements for the conservation of wild birds. There are also other examples. Those are all vital conditions for protecting animal and human health and the environment. Such measures cannot be restricted on the basis of farm size. That is why I encourage members not to support amendment 66.

I will come to Edward Mountain’s amendment 169, but I will cover the other amendments in the group first.

With regard to amendments 166 and 72, under the existing agricultural support scheme, conditions can be imposed that relate to quite a wide range of matters. Where conditions are not complied with, Scottish ministers can require the repayment of support, including with interest. In rare cases, it might be right to refuse, or to recover, support that is otherwise due, even if the standard conditions for support are met.

I hope that we would all agree that it is appropriate to take forward such provisions into a new financial support framework. Section 10 therefore provides ministers with the ability to

“refuse to provide support if they consider that it is not in the public interest for a person to receive it”

or to recover support that has already been paid.

They have to do so, however, in accordance with the regulations that will be set out under section 10. Those regulations will make provision in respect of the meaning of “the public interest” for that purpose. Any regulations that we bring forward would be subject to scrutiny by Parliament. It might, for example, be in the public interest to be able to refuse to pay support for animal welfare purposes to a person who has an animal cruelty conviction or to recover previously granted support from such a person.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 166 and Rhoda Grant’s amendment 72 would require any regulations to make provision in respect of the public interest. However, their proposed changes are not necessary, because section 10 already provides the powers that we need for that purpose. Rather than providing clarity, therefore, those amendments could make the scope of the power to make regulations less clear.

With regard to amendment 73, committee members will, no doubt, be aware that the three-month period that we have specified in the bill mirrors what is in the UK Agriculture Act 2020. Three months seems to be a reasonable period for an exceptional power to intervene in agricultural markets, especially as section 12(8) of the bill provides a means for the extension of that declaration and section 12(9) provides for

“making ... another ... declaration”,

which may relate

“in whole or part to the same exceptional market conditions”

if that proves to be necessary.

I think that the existing provisions that we have set out are proportionate. They also offer the appropriate means by which the period can be extended when necessary.

I was not going to make an intervention at this point, convener—I did not know whether you were turning to me. Sorry—I was jumping ahead.

I will touch briefly on amendments 14 and 15, in my name. They are minor technical changes to section 18, to improve the drafting and ensure that we have consistency. They are not a change in policy, so I hope that the committee will support them.

I understand the intention behind Rhoda Grant’s amendment 82. I reassure members that the Scottish Government will continue to publish information about direct payments and will work with the sector and stakeholders to consider what other information should be made public. Amendment 82 would mean that any regulations about the publication of information would have to include an information requirement under section 17, even if there was no need for that. Therefore, I ask Rhoda Grant not to press amendment 82. If she does, I ask members not to support it.

With regard to what Richard Leonard has set out in relation to amendment 13, I am absolutely sympathetic to the intentions of his amendment, because it seeks to promote greater transparency. That is what we intend by enabling ministers to make regulations on the publication of information about payment recipients.

However, there are some technical issues with amendment 13 as drafted. That includes the reference to the concept of “beneficial ownership”, which does not have a clear meaning under Scots law. Some information about the control of companies and trusts, as Richard Leonard has outlined, can be obtained from other sources, including the new register of persons holding a controlled interest in land that he mentioned.

There is also the question of the extent to which the bill should legislate for matters that might not relate to agricultural policy, even if they have a wider public benefit. We would also need to get the consent of the Information Commissioner in terms of the current consultation, which is still on-going. However, I am happy to have further discussions about that. I ask Richard Leonard not to move amendment 13, so that we can continue that discussion before stage 3.

With regard to amendment 83, section 17 makes provision for the publication of information about support payments to particular individuals or legal persons. Rhoda Grant’s amendment 83 would change that section so that it covers information about the strategy for and outcomes of agricultural policy. I listened carefully to the rationale that Rhoda Grant set out for the amendment, but I do not think that this is the appropriate place to put that measure. I am not convinced that the particular enabling powers in sections 13 and 17 are suitable for that purpose.

As we discussed at length last week in relation to the rural support plan, I am open to considering how reporting and monitoring could be improved as part of further changes. I am happy to have that further discussion with Rhoda Grant on what that might look like and to consider the matters that she raises as part of amendment 83. Because of that, I ask Rhoda Grant not to press her amendment 83 today.

But we would be bringing forward regulations for parliamentary scrutiny. That is the whole purpose of section 10.

As I hope I have been able to outline, that is why I ask the committee not to support those amendments. I am happy to support amendment 167, from Beatrice Wishart, and to consult on that basis.

With regard to amendment 169, I am glad that I now know the reason behind the lodging of that amendment, because it was quite hard to understand when I initially saw it. I am happy to engage in further dialogue with Edward Mountain in relation to the powers in section 10.

As I have outlined to the committee previously, the code of practice in sustainable and regenerative agriculture is meant to be that guidance and support. It will adapt and change over time. It is meant to be a supportive document for our farmers and crofters. I am trying to outline alternative examples of how its use or application could benefit a farmer or crofter, and I think that that helpfully illustrates how it is intended to be used.

In relation to amendment 155, although guidance might not be mandatory, there are circumstances in which it is helpful to the parties or to the court for them to be able to give due weight to guidance and legal proceedings. That is why section 7(2)(d) has been included in the bill. Current cross-compliance provides an example of that. We have the 13 statutory management requirements, which are based on existing legislation. Cross-compliance operates separately from the criminal process, but criminal proceedings can run in parallel. For example, a claimant who has falsified a cattle passport might be prosecuted by the local authority, as well as having a penalty applied to the support scheme payments. Again, we have set out that information on the relevant websites, which provide clarity to claimants.

By removing section 7(2)(d), amendment 155 would remove the ability to make regulations that would help the courts to act in a way that is fair to everyone. Again, as with the previous amendment, I do not think that that is the intention or what is looking to be achieved, which is why I ask the committee not to support the amendment.

I appreciate what Ariane Burgess has set out regarding her amendments, and I am, of course, happy to meet her to discuss the matter further, as I would be with other members around the table.

We have set out clearly that we need flexibility in the bill, and the amendments would restrict us in that regard. Some of the amendments are unworkable administratively, too, and there would be significant concerns around some of the amendments as they have been drafted. I am more than happy to meet the member to discuss the matter further.