Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have already said that section 10 provides us with the powers, but we would have to bring forward the meaning of “the public interest” in regulations. I cannot produce a definition, because we have not yet introduced those regulations.

I appreciate the intent behind amendment 76, in the name of Rhoda Grant. The bill’s current drafting already commits the Scottish ministers to consulting appropriate persons, but the amendment signals more explicitly the commitment that I have already set out to co-developing the detail of support, which will come before the Parliament in secondary legislation. I am therefore more than happy to support the amendment. However, purely because of my support for that amendment, I must ask the committee not to support amendment 171, as I do not think that it will be needed.

Amendment 80 specifies that grazing committees and co-operatives can claim support as a collective for joint projects, which, as Rhoda Grant has outlined, will be separate from individual support. There is absolutely no doubt that crofting common grazings play a really important role in collective action to mitigate and adapt to climate change, as well as in protecting and restoring nature. I also note that amendment 81 complements that by defining the phrase “grazing committee”. I strongly agree that we should be supporting grazing committees and co-operatives, and I am happy to do whatever is thought to be helpful to clarify that in the bill. For that reason, I welcome both of Rhoda Grant’s amendments and urge the committee to support them.

Amendment 76 agreed to.

Amendment 171 not moved.

A lot of important points have been raised today. I would also like to think that there are a lot of points of agreement around the table, given what we have heard so far and what I think we will hear when other amendments are spoken to.

First, I turn to the amendments in my name. Amendment 6 seeks to add “pig meat” to the list of products in paragraph 3(3) of schedule 1 to which Scottish ministers can provide particular support. That also includes support for ancillary purposes such as the packaging or distribution of the product. We are committed to supporting the pig sector, and enabling such support will give us more tools to do that.

Amendment 8 seeks to clarify that enterprises to which Scottish ministers might provide support in schedule 1 include

“co-operative societies and similar organisations.”

Agricultural co-operative societies make a vital contribution to our diverse agriculture industry and its diversity, and they are important for ensuring that we have innovation, sustainability, resilience and, ultimately, food security for Scotland and its rural communities.

Amendment 10 seeks to amend schedule 1 so as to give ministers as much flexibility as possible in providing support relating to research and development.

Amendment 11 seeks to amend paragraph 8(2) of schedule 1 to extend the range of ancillary activities for knowledge, innovation, education and training that can be supported to include the full range of purposes, as set out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 8(1) of the schedule. Including paragraph (8)(1)(d) extends the coverage of ancillary activities so as to include support in connection with research and development to

“support those living, working or operating in rural areas ... improve or support rural land (or land use), or ... improve or support the environment”.

I ask the committee to support amendments 6, 8, 10 and 11.

I will turn to some of the other amendments in the group. Amendment 140 clarifies that growing crops is an agricultural activity, including, in particular, the growing of energy and non-food crops. It recognises that energy crops are an increasingly important component of Scottish agriculture as a way of meeting our growing domestic demand for biomass feedstock. I appreciate the discussions and the points that have been made around the table today about competing pressures on land. We must always seek to balance the amount of sustainable domestic biomass production without significantly impacting wider land use needs and opportunities, including food production. I ask the committee to support amendment 140.

I hope that some of my comments will help to provide Tim Eagle with some of the clarification that he seeks with his amendments.

Section 7 enables us to make regulations about guidance. Regulations can provide for whether any particular guidance should be published or laid, whether any person should have regard to the guidance, the legal effect of not complying with it and the status of guidance in legal proceedings. We issue a lot of guidance, most of which can and should be administrative guidance only. It does not need to be laid or formally published and it can stand on its own terms. However, some guidance is more significant than that, which is why the power in section 7 is important. We have to be able to make rules about the important guidance, including about the cases where compliance with the guidance is relevant to some other question and cases where guidance should be admissible and have evidential value in legal proceedings.

On amendment 151, the code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture aims to provide guidance for farmers, crofters and land managers on how to deliver sustainable and regenerative practice. It is intended not to be prescriptive but to provide examples and good practice. It is also intended to be readily updated and added to as our practice and understanding of what works in those practices adjust over time.

In section 26, we set out that

“The Scottish Ministers must prepare and publish a document providing guidance on sustainable and regenerative agriculture”

and that, in doing so, we have to consult our industry and, of course, beyond that. The code is explicitly referred to in section 7 to make it clear that the guidance in the code is guidance for the purposes of the powers in that section. Removing that reference, as amendment 151 proposes, would not change the status of the guidance in the code, because it would still be guidance. That is why I encourage the committee not to support amendment 151.

Amendments 152 and 153 remove the flexibility for ministers to choose to simply publish guidance or to lay it before Parliament, or to do both. I thought that there would be merit in that flexibility, which is why the bill was drafted in that way, but I am more than happy to support amendments 152 and 153.

I am still not entirely clear what the issue is with amendment 154. The power in section 7 is relatively modest and technical. Any regulations that we make will, of course, be subject to scrutiny by the Parliament. I do not know whether Tim Eagle thinks that the power would be used to impose unfair burdens on farmers and crofters and that we would penalise them for not following guidance. I can clarify that that is not the case. It is certainly not what we have set out.

I will have to follow that up with my colleague Paul McLennan, the Minister for Housing, and discuss it with him, because I do not have that information in front of me at the moment. I could provide more information on that afterwards.

I appreciate the argument that Edward Mountain has set out and that the powers in sections 13 and 16 and what results from them will be of great significance to our farmers and crofters. However, I must ask the committee not to support amendment 183, because, although I agree with Edward Mountain that, in some cases, a three-month timeframe is appropriate, I do not think it fair to restrict ourselves in that way. It might be appropriate to have longer periods for appeals and their determination. I therefore think that we need flexibility, as I set out earlier.

I appreciate the point that Edward Mountain has raised and how important it is. If he has particular cases, he should write to me about them so that we can look into them. We want to make sure that we have an appropriate appeals process in place. That will be subject to the regulations that we introduce, but we must ensure that we have the flexibility to set an appropriate period. That is why I ask the committee not to support amendment 183.

I will start with amendment 134. As Rachael Hamilton knows, and as we touched on in the discussion last week, I would love to be in a position in which we could set a multiyear budget, as we were able to do under the common agricultural policy when we were in the European Union. Ultimately, such an arrangement provides us all—especially our farmers and crofters—with clarity and certainty.

However, the UK Government has failed to meet its promise to engage in meaningful discussion with us and the other devolved Governments on the future of agriculture spending. I must be clear with everyone that that means that, after next year, we have no certainty that there will be any funding at all in the future, which, of course, is not acceptable. While that remains the case, it is not reasonable to accept amendment 134, and I urge the committee not to support it.

Sorry, convener—I was too keen to respond.

I appreciate the points that Rachael Hamilton has made, but I do not see those two things—what I have said and what officials have set out previously—as contradictory. Officials talked previously about “the basic standards”, but our basic standards are high standards, so I do not think that those two things are in conflict.

I would not agree to the amendment, because I think that it is important for us not to be prescriptive around the definition. As Rachael Hamilton touched on, there was conflicting advice on that in committee, too, and I know that other stakeholders opposed having a firm and fixed definition. That is why I encourage the committee not to support amendment 204.

Richard Leonard’s amendment 91 seeks to fill a perceived gap in the duty of agricultural wages inspectors, and it crosses over into local authority duties to inspect accommodation to determine whether it meets the tolerable standard.

When dealing with routine or complaint inspections, agricultural wages enforcement teams already report to local authorities any concerns that employees raise with them on the condition of their accommodation. That is procedural practice and it allows the appropriate authority to deal with housing issues. I therefore do not consider amendment 91 to be necessary. I also do not think that we would want to bring housing matters into the bill, which is fundamentally about providing support for agricultural and rural communities.

That said, I absolutely recognise that we need to do what we can to ensure that everyone who lives and works in Scotland, including those who work in agriculture, has access to appropriate housing. I believe that that would be best done through our wider commitment to address the overall condition of housing in Scotland.

The Scottish Government’s aim, as it is set out in our housing to 2040 strategy, is to introduce new cross-tenure housing standards, which will be set in law. The new standards will cover all homes, whether they are new or existing homes, including agricultural properties, mobile homes and tied accommodation. We want to ensure that there are no margins of tolerance, no exemptions and no substandard homes in urban, rural or island communities, in deprived communities or in tenements. By doing so, we will have consistency across all housing tenures and help people in Scotland to have access to high-quality homes that meet their needs.

Although I fully appreciate the intent behind amendment 91, I do not believe that the bill is the appropriate place for it. That is why I ask the committee not to support it.