Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am sorry, but consultation is mentioned in relation to section 9.

Like amendment 159, amendments 158 and 165 seek to specify the tiered support model in the bill when that would be better done through regulations. Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 165 goes so far as to define tier 1 in the context of an existing support payment. As with amendment 159, I am concerned that that would limit the future flexibility of the framework for which the bill provides. I hope that I have highlighted that it is important for us to retain that flexibility and to future proof the legislation.

That will include potentially capping or tapering future payments and schemes within the tiers when and where the Scottish ministers consider that appropriate. Crucially, that will involve industry and other partners helping to co-develop the right approaches for the new tiered payments, including on capping and tapering. That is why I encourage the committee not to support those amendments.

I turn to Rhoda Grant’s amendment 69. The Government is committed to the principles of fair work and to ensuring that workers in rural Scotland are paid a fair wage for their labour. My amendment 5 puts that principle at the core of the rural support plan and ensures that it will be a central consideration in the provision of that support. Rhoda Grant will be aware from previous discussions on the matter, including last week, that, in drafting the provision, due care and attention have been paid to the Parliament’s present competences in relation to legislating on employment matters. That is why I ask the committee not to support amendment 69.

I turn now to amendments 160 to 163. Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 160 seeks to impose what I think is an arbitrary time window for consulting on this section of the bill, and Edward Mountain’s amendments 161 and 162 prescribe who is to be consulted. I do not think that those amendments are reasonable, and I think that they lose sight of the existing process of co-development that I have talked about. I think that they could cut across that work to the detriment of the support that farmers, crofters and land managers might receive in the future.

I am more than happy to meet Rhoda Grant to discuss the issues further, because, as I said, I completely understand the rationale for amendment 55 being lodged. However, the way that the amendment has been drafted means that it is too restrictive in relation to the types of activity. As I said, I am more than happy to pick up that conversation with her before stage 3.

Amendment 147 seeks to limit the power of the Scottish ministers to provide forestry support under the bill unless an environmental impact assessment has been completed for all woodland creation schemes on land of more than 40 hectares and for smaller schemes on land that would, cumulatively, exceed 40 hectares.

I understand that the amendment is based on a recommendation that was made in a report that was published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Scottish Forestry believes that the recommendation and the thought process that led to it were based on a flawed understanding of how EIA regulations for forestry work. All new Scottish planting schemes that exceed 20 hectares are already subject to screening assessments under the Forestry (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, as are any other projects that are in an environmentally sensitive area, regardless of the size of the project.

Amendment 147 would apply only to grant-funded woodland, which would result in a two-tier system developing in which grant-funded woodland creation would be subject to more onerous administrative and financial requirements than woodland creation that is funded by private investment, which could include community-owned woodland. That could result in a slowdown in woodland creation or, worst of all, a significant downturn in the creation of new woodland, particularly native woodland, and in natural regeneration. It would directly disadvantage Scottish farmers and other land managers, whereas woodland investment that was privately funded would not be disadvantaged. If it were to pass, amendment 147 would significantly increase the bureaucracy and costs related to publicly funded tree planting.

I hope that committee members agree that we do not want those things to happen, particularly at a time when we want to support our Scottish land managers to undertake the right climate change mitigation actions for their needs. That is why I do not support amendment 147. I ask Ariane Burgess not to press her amendment.

I had finished, but I am happy to take a point.

I absolutely support the intent behind what Rachael Hamilton is trying to achieve with her amendment. She talked about measures that the UK Government has introduced, or is looking to introduce, on the back of the Rock review. I highlight that we have already implemented some of those measures in Scotland anyway.

The member touched on—as I have touched on in my previous responses on other amendments, because I recognise the issue—the importance of tenant farmers and the need for them to have the same access to the future framework of support. However, we have introduced measures to address some of the underlying issues in that regard in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is currently undergoing scrutiny by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee under the convenership of Edward Mountain.

Therefore, my only comments in relation to amendment 191 are that, although I absolutely appreciate the intent behind it, any measures relating to tenant farmers would be most appropriately considered, keeping all those measures together, as part of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.

A lot of important points have been raised in the discussion, and I will try to cover as many of them as possible in my comments.

I will start with my amendment 17. It makes clearer the types of criteria that CPD activity providers may be expected to comply with under regulations. Stakeholders have indicated that some CPD providers come into the profession with valuable skills and experience but not necessarily with formal qualifications. Amendment 17 ultimately seeks to recognise the value of those skills and experience, and I hope that it provides reassurance to people who have those skills and experience but who may not necessarily have formal qualifications that ministers will look to those factors when setting out the criteria for the certification of persons who are providing CPD. Accordingly, I ask the committee to support amendment 17.

Turning to amendment 16, we support the inclusion of farm workers, but that amendment is narrower in scope than, and is covered by, amendment 192, in the name of Alasdair Allan. Amendment 192 will ensure that ministers will be able to make a CPD regime that could apply more broadly to persons who work in agriculture, whether or not they are employees. That could include family members and other relations as well as other people. I therefore ask Richard Leonard not to press his amendment 16, and I ask the committee to support Alasdair Allan’s amendment 192.

I will group together most of the other amendments—I realise that there are quite a few in this group. Amendments 193 to 197, 199 and 88 seek, in varying degrees, to put certain requirements of CPD into the bill, which is why I want to try to address them together. First, I want to reassure members that a substantial piece of work is already under way in relation to the future agricultural knowledge and innovation system—AKIS. Indeed, at the request of stakeholders, including farmers and crofters, CPD will form a core part of the new system. Informal consultation has already taken place with a wide range of stakeholder organisations on a future AKIS, including on CPD, which has drawn to our attention many of the matters that members are now seeking to include in the bill.

As I have said previously in relation to other amendments, it is fully my intention to co-design the CPD regime, involving a wide range of stakeholders, to capture and address many of those matters—the formats, the scale and the scope of who might undertake CPD and in what circumstances. We intend to consult on proposals later this year, and the aim is to formally consult on the CPD regulations in 2025.

When it comes to those amendments as a whole, I ask members not to move them, so that we can work together to address some of the issues, recognising, as I said, that some of the amendments are, to varying degrees, quite similar. I appreciate what members want to be captured in the bill, and I very much want to work with them on that.

That leaves two amendments for me to address. First, amendment 198 would have the effect that Scottish ministers could introduce compulsory CPD requirements only if they related

“to relevant health and safety issues”.

I absolutely recognise the importance of health and safety in agriculture, but the effect of amendment 198 is very restrictive. Given the scope and value of learning and development competencies that are of interest to the relevant sectors and are required to deliver the agricultural reform programme’s aims and objectives, I ask the committee not to support amendment 198.

Secondly, in relation to amendment 89, I absolutely recognise the importance of ensuring that CPD requirements are proportionate. As I have outlined, we intend to co-design with industry a CPD regime that is not overly burdensome and, of course, is not unfair to the industry. We have already undertaken an informal consultation, and I have set out our intentions to consult later next year. That will help to ensure that a CPD regime is fair, works for all and adds genuine value. I ask members not to support amendment 89.

I am happy to give an assurance on that.

I will turn to the amendment and what it sets out in relation to the CAP scheme. I understand the requirement for monitoring and evaluation and that, when we are using public money, we need to be able to evidence how it is being used and what is being delivered. However, we have existing reporting requirements for CAP within the rural development regulations, and the bill does not change that. I touched on an example at the committee meeting last week: last month, we commenced the formal ex-post evaluation for the Scottish rural development programme for the entire 2014-20 programming period, as part of the formal closure requirements for the programme. We will continue to report on CAP schemes.

The purpose of the bill is to provide the powers to enable a payment framework that will replace the previous CAP legislation. As I set out in the discussions last week, I think that the rural support plan is the right place for that. Last week, I made a substantial offer on funding, which will cover what currently exists for CAP alongside what we are going to introduce as part of our future framework, too. Therefore, I ask Rachael Hamilton not to press her amendment.

In relation to front loading, I do not think that it is right that we include such commitments in the bill, because we need to have the flexibility to be able to design the new system. If we decide to take that decision after we have done the co-development work, we have the powers to do that. I do not think that it is right for us to embed in the bill a provision that commits us to a particular system or scheme without us having had that conversation. That is still part of the co-development work that is to be undertaken.

I am more than happy to have that conversation.

I turn to Brian Whittle’s amendment 56, which seeks to amend part 4 of schedule 1 by specifically referencing the

“identification of rural anchor institutions”.

I fully recognise and value the important role of anchor institutions in supporting rural development, and I am happy to support amendment 56.

Amendment 57 seeks to enable support to be provided to rural communities to help to create community benefits. Amendment 58 seeks to enable Scottish ministers to assist people to start a business or enterprise for the purpose of nature restoration, which is a core objective of our agricultural policy and our vision for agriculture. Amendment 59 seeks to enable Scottish ministers to provide support to assist

“persons to invest in nature-based enterprises in rural areas.”

I agree that we should be able to do that. Amendment 62 seeks to amend schedule 1 to widen the activities that could be supported under the new rural support framework. I support the objectives behind those amendments, and I urge the committee to support amendments 57 to 59 and 62.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 148 seeks to amend paragraph 12 of schedule 1, which covers support for recreational access to land. It would have the effect that support could be provided only for the purpose of improving recreational access to land. However, I do not think that that would be a useful change. If persons use the improved access, access must be responsible under the right to roam, as set out in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. If they use the improved access on some other basis—for example, because it is a right of way or because the owner gives consent—ministers would not be able to provide support. I ask the committee not to support amendment 148.

Amendment 60 seeks to improve paragraph 13 of schedule 1, on soil, by providing further details of what can be done for the purpose of improving or protecting soil health and quality, which are of vital importance for our farmers and the wider environment. I think that the clarification provided by the amendment is useful, so I ask the committee to support it.

Amendment 61 seeks to amend schedule 1 so that assistance should include actions relating to

“agriculture, forestry, land use and land use change.”

I am happy to support that amendment.

Amendment 149 seeks to augment the purposes of support to include compensating persons in respect of the additional costs that are incurred and income that is lost by the person in consequence of the implementation of the reintroduction of particular species. I have some sympathy with what Tim Eagle is trying to achieve with his amendment. As has been mentioned, we provide compensation in relation to some species, but we do not normally do that through this route. However, it would be worth while to provide the opportunity to provide such support in the future under schedule 1.

I note that amendment 149 also covers the introduction of non-native species, which I do not think was necessarily intended. I ask Tim Eagle not to press amendment 149 at this stage in order to allow me to consider the issues further ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 63 seeks to amend schedule 1 to expand support under the new proposed rural support framework to include those persons, businesses and organisations that wish to preserve or protect water and the land’s capacity for holding water. I am therefore happy to support amendment 63.

Lastly, amendment 201 seeks to add a definition of “horticulture” to paragraph 2(2) in schedule 1. I think that the word would otherwise take its ordinary meaning, which does not appear to be particularly different but offers more flexibility. That said, I understand that the amendment is intended to bring further clarity and I am happy to support it, although I may come back to tweak some of that wording ahead of stage 3.

That is what I am just coming to. I am talking about all those amendments in the round.

Section 9(2) already places on the Scottish ministers a requirement to consult, and, because capping is a budget control mechanism, the timing of any regulations will be linked to the standard budget processes. It is doubtful that that would be possible within the six-month period that is specified in amendment 160.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 163 also seeks to amend the bill in a way that could limit the breadth of consultees on the expenditure of public money, even though there is potentially a wider interest in that regard. For the reasons I have outlined, I encourage the committee not to support amendments 160 to 163.

On amendment 164, we had initially proposed that regulations under the section be subject to the negative procedure, as I expected that the power would be used in respect of matters of detail and to fine-tune funding in the light of experience, in order to provide the best outcome against the vision while trying to maintain public value. However, I appreciate the concerns that have been raised by stakeholders as well as by MSPs, so I am happy to recommend that the committee support amendment 164.

Absolutely. The on-going oversight and the parliamentary scrutiny are important. We would have to set out whether we intended to continue that support if we needed to, and we would do that in good time or before the deadline approached. What we have set out in the bill as drafted enables us to continue to do all that, but it also provides for parliamentary scrutiny of the use of those powers, which is important. If the committee supported the amendment, it would remove some of that scrutiny, which is why I ask the committee not to support the amendment.