Seòmar agus comataidhean

I absolutely understand why the amendment was lodged and what it is trying to achieve. We are working with farmers, crofters and land managers to develop future support because we realise that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. We need to make sure that the measures that we introduce work for small farmers and crofters as well as for larger landowners. The work that we do on that will be important.

As far as I am aware, there has been no such communication—there has certainly been no communication with me. I have had no communication at all from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in relation to that. However, I would be happy to share such information with the committee, should I ever receive it.

I do not believe that amendment 135 is necessary. Last week, we discussed at length the need to have a rural support plan that is underpinned by statute to set out precisely how public support will be provided to deliver the objectives of the bill, how progress will be tracked and how and with whom the plan will be co-developed. In last week’s discussion, I set out in detail my intention to lodge a wraparound set of amendments to enable the points that were raised by members to be addressed. In lodging those amendments, I will consider what Colin Smyth is looking to achieve with amendment 135. Therefore, I hope that amendment 135 will not be moved today, so that we can have further conversation.

On amendments 50 and 138, I have been consistent and clear on the Government’s approach, which is to co-develop with the industry and our wider partners to ensure that the support that we underpin through legislation has the support of those who are due to receive it and, ultimately, that it best meets the wider interests of rural Scotland—agriculture, in particular. That co-design work is already well under way, so it is debatable how useful consulting on the content of regulations would be. It would unhelpfully slow down the process of making relatively minor changes to vital support, and I do not think that that would be in the best interests of farmers, crofters and land managers. I therefore urge members not to support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 50 or Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 138.

Amendment 136 seeks to make specific support accessible to tenant farmers. I am fully committed to ensuring that tenant farmers are given equality of opportunity to access the new agricultural support framework and that its four tiers work for all types of land tenure. Some of the barriers to that happening, particularly in relation to peatland restoration and agroforestry, relate to the landowner-tenant relationship and where power currently lies. The provisions in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which I introduced to the Parliament in March, seek to remedy some of the issues with that. I hope that Rachael Hamilton will support the provisions in that bill and, because we are dealing with such issues in that bill, I hope that she will not move amendment 136.

Amendment 137 proposes to place a precondition on the Scottish ministers to engage with any communities or persons who might be affected by forestry activities prior to making regulations in relation to forestry support under section 4 of the bill. Although I can understand the overall rationale for the amendment, it would create an unreasonable burden. The forestry support that the bill provides for extends far beyond woodland creation; it covers areas such as deer control, work to improve habitats and species at a landscape scale and even work to improve the accessibility of woodlands around large population centres. Given the breadth of areas that are covered, I am concerned that amendment 137 could result in a duty being placed on the Scottish ministers to engage with every community in Scotland before making regulations to adjust what forestry activities might be supported, which would be impractical.

I assure Ariane Burgess that forest planning and woodland creation guidance documents are already under review and are being aligned with the Scottish Land Commission’s community engagement guidance. I am happy to provide committee members with more information on that process. I hope that, given my explanation of the work that is under way elsewhere, Ariane Burgess will not see the need to move amendment 137.

I believe that Tim Eagle’s amendment 157 is well intentioned. As I said, the rural support plan is the right place for reporting on the monitoring and evaluation of our performance. The timescale that the Scottish ministers must produce a report within one year of the section coming into force is arbitrary and would be unreasonable, because it fails to account for other reporting cycles that would be established to each and every delegated function as best fit. I urge Tim Eagle not to move amendment 157.

I do not have much to say, because amendments 9, 12 and 18 correct some minor typographical errors that were identified following the bill’s introduction.

I will add one point on amendment 19, which reverses the repeal of section 60 of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948. Initially, we included the repeal in the bill because it was thought that the power to appropriate land in section 60 was no longer used. However, it is used, including in respect of the 2018 action that was taken by Scottish ministers to acquire the land at the former Ravenscraig hospital from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde for the purposes of local housing.

I encourage the committee to support the amendments.

I move amendment 9.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

Amendments 10 and 11 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 148 moved—[Tim Eagle].

I hope that the rest of my comments will better answer some of the concerns that you raise. I understand the concerns that have been raised, because we discussed the issue at length in committee. I also understand why the amendments in the group have been lodged. However, I am trying to set out why section 7 is relevant and important.

Amendment 154 shows a misunderstanding of why we might want provisions on compliance with guidance and why that should be taken into account when we determine whether a duty or condition has been met.

In the example of a farmer who had potentially been challenged, a provision of that type might help them to show that what they were doing was lawful or that it met a condition of support. It might help them to show that a particular penalty should not be applied, which would be more likely to ensure fairness than the contrary, as well as helping farmers to manage their businesses with certainty.

Another example is that, under the current schemes, scales of compliance are reflected in cross-compliance. There are currently 32 ways in which a breach of cross-compliance can be assessed that recognise intent, extent, severity, permanence and reoccurrence. Penalties can range from 1 per cent to 100 per cent. Guidance on penalties is currently set out on the rural payments and services website, which provides clarity to claimants.

We could use that power to set out the extent to which compliance with the guidance is relevant in determining whether there is a breach. That would provide greater certainty for farmers who just want to do the right thing. By removing it, amendment 154 would remove the ability to provide that clarity. To be fair, I do not think that that was the intent of the amendment. Therefore, I encourage Tim Eagle not to press the amendment. If he does, I encourage the committee not to support it.

Yes, of course. We have already touched on the good food nation plans and the issues that can be considered in that regard. That is meant to involve a cross-Government approach—we are looking at all the different areas that touch on food policy and giving them further consideration. Again, I think that the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 is the appropriate lens through which to look at the issues that Emma Harper has raised.

Absolutely. The point is that we want to develop it further. It is a pilot at the moment. Ultimately, we want to work with small producers to find the best means of providing support and to discover what support will work best for them.

As I have just outlined, we are at the start of that process. We must take the actions that we learn from the pilot need to be taken and look to develop that fund in future. I am more than happy to continue to engage with the member and the committee, and to provide them with an update on that work as it progresses.

Amendment 68 seeks to create an unspecified minimum level of support that an applicant can receive. I am not able to support amendment 68, because it would create the potential for public support to be gained even if the contribution to outcomes might not merit it.

Amendments 70, 71 and 159 are all variations on the same idea, which call for unspecified levels of front loading to be put into primary legislation. As I have already outlined to the committee, I am committed to supporting small producers according to their needs, and to working with them to develop that support.

Concepts such as front loading and minimum levels of direct support reflect people’s issues and the concerns that they have highlighted with the present and soon-to-be past model of support that we are currently working in. I readily acknowledge that that model has not done enough to support small producers, but, as I outlined to Rhoda Grant, we need the time to develop how best to do that in future as part of our future framework and tiered support. For those reasons, I urge the committee not to support amendments 68, 78, 71 and 159.

On Rhoda Grant’s amendments in this group, section 26 places a duty on the Scottish ministers to prepare and publish a code of practice. As I have already set out, the intention is to give farmers and crofters guidance on a range of ways in which they could voluntarily undertake activity that constitutes sustainable and/or regenerative agriculture. Many activities could be undertaken, because not everything will suit every sector, geography or business.

Rhoda Grant’s amendments would neither enable nor empower farmers and crofters to take up activity that best suits their needs. As we know, regulations are a form of legislation, so requiring them for the code of practice would make the code prescriptive and would limit farmers’ and crofters’ agency and choice. Therefore, I urge committee members not to support amendments 84 to 86.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 186 would require the code to assess the impact of species reintroduction. I suggest that there is no need for the amendment, because that assessment could already be made under section 26(3), which sets out what the code should include. Moreover, lots of different actions and activities should be considered in terms of their impact, and it is not helpful to single that one out and put it in the bill. I am also not clear why the code of practice should cover the reintroduction of species, especially when that is not defined. I therefore ask the committee not to support amendment 186.

Edward Mountain might be in luck, because I am, of course, sympathetic to the intention of amendment 187. Although the amendment’s drafting is technically defective, I am happy to work with him on the drafting of an amendment ahead of stage 3.

I am sorry to say this, given that amendment 188 is Mr Eagle’s final amendment, but, as I have said, section 26 requires the Scottish ministers to consult

“such persons as they consider likely to be interested in or affected by”

the code of practice and to lay it before the Scottish Parliament prior to publishing it, which, in my view, gives Parliament and members sufficient opportunity to input their views on the code before it is finalised. Therefore, I ask members not to support amendment 188.

I appreciate the points that members have made. A wide range of amendments have been put forward in this group, both for and against capping, redistributive action and what has been called front loading. I ask members to consider my comments on each, bearing in mind that section 9 already allows for redistributive payments.

Ariane Burgess’s amendment 67 seeks to make capping mandatory. I think that that should be a matter for the Scottish ministers to consider. The power that we have drafted and set out is a permissive one, and any decision to use it will be based on consultation with those persons the Scottish ministers consider appropriate. Edward Mountain made some points in relation to that, but he has not been part of the other discussions that we have had at previous committee meetings, when I talked about how co-development is foundational to our approach for developing policy. It is critical to remember that.

It is necessary for us to retain overall flexibility to be able to deliver the flexible, future-proof legislation that we will need if we are to deliver our vision for agriculture. It must work for us today, but we must ensure that we have legislation that will work in the future. For that reason, I ask the committee not to support amendment 67.

Amendments 68, 70, 71 and 159 all seek to address matters related to our smaller producers. I have already made clear our commitment to ensuring that smaller producers continue to thrive, and I am happy to reiterate that commitment again today. If anything, we want there to be more small producers.

Our small producer pilot, which I have previously mentioned to the committee, is just a start on that journey, as we seek to ensure that we listen to small producers and co-develop support that will work for them. Given their unique contribution to rural Scotland, we want to ensure that small producers are not considered only as an add-on to a generalist support model.

We want what we include in the bill not to restrict our ability to cap, taper or redistribute. We will undoubtedly come on to that when we discuss amendments in later groupings. It is fundamental to our approach to policy development that we work with our farmers and crofters to see which mechanism works best. I appreciate the evidence that the committee has heard in that regard, but it is important that we go through that process and that we have the flexibility provided in the bill for whatever mechanism we might choose to develop.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 102 seeks to widen the objectives to include soil health, in order to highlight the importance of the overall biological condition of soil. I absolutely recognise and agree that the protection and effective management of soil health is crucial to sustainable and regenerative farming and is aligned with our wider biodiversity and climate adaptation work, and with our efforts to cut emissions from the agriculture sector. However, the bill enables us to provide support for that purpose, as soil health is specified in schedule 1. Therefore, I do not think that amendment 102 is necessary and I ask the committee not to support it.

If Colin Smyth’s amendment 103 were agreed to, it would add further text to section 1 to emphasise the importance of sustainable agricultural businesses to rural communities and would link that to the objective set out in paragraph (a) of section 1, on the adoption and use of sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices. However, the objectives of agricultural policy in section 1 already take into consideration the importance of sustainable agricultural businesses, not least through the inclusion of the objective in paragraph (b), on the production of high-quality food. For those reasons, I ask the committee not to support amendment 103.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 106 seeks to update the objective set out in paragraph (d) of section 1, on enabling rural communities to thrive, to emphasise two of the factors that will enable communities to thrive, including shorter supply chains and incomes received by farmers and crofters. The purpose of the objectives in the bill is to cover the range of factors that foster thriving rural communities. Although I recognise the key importance of shorter supply chains and of

“the adequacy and fairness of incomes received by farmers and crofters”—

to be clear, I absolutely support those aims—I do not agree that there is a need to emphasise them in section 1, given the wide range of factors involved in enabling rural communities to thrive. I therefore ask the committee not to support amendment 106.

As with amendment 92, on the creation of a purpose clause, I believe that, although well intentioned, amendment 107 is unnecessary. The bill already makes it clear that the powers that are sought are to be exercised to meet the objectives set out in part 1. The rural support plan, on which I will offer more context, will make clear how we will deliver on those objectives and how we will evidence progress towards them and the broader statutory duties. I hope that that offer will not only deliver on the positive intent behind Colin Smyth’s amendment but will go further by making it clear that ministers will report on and evidence all of this. Accordingly, I ask the committee not to support amendment 107.

On amendment 108, I sought to ensure that the bill’s objectives were drafted sufficiently broadly and at a high enough level to capture the vision for agriculture and ensure flexibility with regard to how that will be realised. However, I also recognise that, over time, what the Government and the Parliament wish for the objectives of agricultural policy might change, and Colin Smyth’s amendment 108 seeks to provide a regulatory power to make those changes. It offers that further flexibility, with a clear place for effective scrutiny, should it be clear that changing or refining objectives in the future is needed or desirable. Therefore, I welcome Colin Smyth’s amendment 108 and ask the committee to support it.

I disagree with Rachael Hamilton’s interpretation. I come back to the rationale that I have set out for our not supporting amendment 101. I do not think that it is helpful to separate out farmers in that context, because they are such an intrinsic part of our rural communities. I referred to farmers earlier, and we have specific measures relating to our farmers and crofters. I therefore think that we are talking slightly at cross-purposes in that respect.

On amendment 26, fair work principles are core to the Scottish Government’s approach to the economy and the labour market, as I have sought to make clear with my amendment 5. The positive intent behind amendment 26 is not in question, but there are a myriad reasons why a rural business might not have sufficient funds and resources, many of which are beyond the influence of Government. Although I understand what Rhoda Grant is seeking to do, I cannot support amendment 26, not least because it asks the Scottish Government to do something that is outwith its powers, however much we might wish that the situation were otherwise. Therefore, I ask the committee not to support amendment 26.