The next item of business is a stage 1 debate on motion S5M-21650, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their buttons now.
I call Fergus Ewing to speak to and move the motion.
15:56
I am pleased to present the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill and to set out its general principles. I thank the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee for its consideration of the bill and for its report, which expresses support for the general principles of the bill. I also express gratitude to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and thank all stakeholders who have submitted evidence to the committee and have had discussions with me and my officials.
It is important to be clear on why we need the bill and on what the bill is and is not intended to address. The bill has been developed as a direct result of the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union. I am sure that everyone here knows that the Scottish Government believes that EU membership is the best option for both Scotland and the UK. However, we are where we are, in a kind of limbo—neither truly part of the EU nor clear about our future relationship with it or the rest of the world.
It is imperative that, as a responsible Government, we ensure that the right legal powers are in place so that we can continue to support the rural economy—farming and food production, in particular. The Covid-19 crisis has brought into sharp relief the importance of the secure production and supply of food as well as of the role of farmers, crofters and everyone in the agricultural supply chain. I am extremely grateful to every person who does that work for Scotland and for us all.
Clarity and certainty in funding are arguably even more important. That is why I remain committed to providing financial security by maintaining current common agricultural policy schemes largely intact until 2021, as I promised to do in “Stability and Simplicity: proposals for a rural funding transition period”.
These unprecedented times also demonstrate the need for powers to adapt flexibly to changing circumstances—in particular, by making simplifications and improvements. As part of the preparations that are needed to leave the EU, the EU common agricultural policy is being rolled over into domestic legislation as “retained EU law”.
That process is happening in two stages. First, the rules on direct payments became law through UK-wide legislation on exit day, at the end of January. Secondly, the remaining areas of the CAP will become law at the end of the implementation period, which is currently due to be 31 September.
That is reflected in the powers in part 1 of the bill, which enable ministers by regulations to ensure that CAP schemes can continue to operate beyond the end of 2020, to make simplifications and improvements to the operation of the legislation governing those schemes, and to modify specific aspects of the common organisation of the markets regulation—namely, on market intervention, marketing standards and carcase classification.
The bill is not intended to create the opportunity to provide powers for a wholesale change in policy—that is not the purpose of the bill. I know that stakeholders and the REC Committee want to see a legislative commitment, through the bill, on the long-term direction of travel for rural policy. Although I am sure that the matter will be debated in detail should the bill progress to stage 2, I want to be clear that the reason why the bill does not set such a direction is that that is not its purpose. The bill is intended to be the mechanism by which we get to the proposals about long-term policy rather than to provide the answers themselves. That is an important distinction. [Interruption.]
Excuse me, cabinet secretary. I say to members that, although it is difficult to carry on conversations, yelling at each other across the desks makes it difficult for those of us who are at the front of the chamber. Thank you.
I will briefly address the related recommendation in the committee’s report that a time limit be added to some of the powers in the bill by way of a sunset clause that would restrict their use after 2024. I understand and support the desire to hold the Government to a strict timetable, but surely the current unfortunate—albeit extreme—circumstances surrounding Covid-19 show that such timetables can unexpectedly be overtaken by events.
I think that everybody accepts that point. Most people who gave evidence to the committee were concerned that, if there was no sunset clause in the bill, it would allow this Government or a future Government to proceed with payments without the need to introduce any changes to a new system in Scotland. We all want to see a new system in Scotland—the cabinet secretary says that he would like to see it by 2024. The committee is not being prescriptive; we just said that we thought that the Government should propose its own date. I suggest that the end of the next parliamentary session might be a good date.
I thank Mr Rumbles for his suggestion. I know that he is always seeking to be helpful and constructive. I look forward to debating the point in more detail than perhaps we can today, although I am sure that members will comment on it.
My point is that having a rigid proposal of the sort that has been recommended by some of the committee is not something that makes sense. I suggest—and I think that Mr Rumbles accepts this—that we are held to account every week about everything, and that will continue to be the case. When we make any substantive further policy proposals, we will be held to account. By virtue of being held to account by the REC Committee, we are open to scrutiny all the time in the Parliament. I can think of very few Parliaments in which there is more democratic scrutiny, and I welcome that. I do not think that Mr Rumbles did so, but no one who is arguing for a sunset clause should also suggest that there is an absence of scrutiny. There is great deal of scrutiny, which is the fundamental point. At elections, we are all accountable to the people of Scotland for what we do.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Yes, I will take another intervention, although I think that I will have to abandon most of my speech.
I am deeply sorry to hear that, cabinet secretary.
Does the cabinet secretary accept that one way to address his concern that a cliff edge would be created by having a fixed date in a sunset clause would be to provide for the date to be moved through secondary legislation, if circumstances were such that the Government wished to do so and if Parliament agreed? I think that that would address his concern about having a fixed date in a sunset clause.
I will allow the cabinet secretary a few minutes of extra time.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. That is very generous.
When I was in mountain rescue teams, I always concluded that cliff edges were places that are best avoided altogether. Shifting the date does not seem to me to be an ideal solution, but, at the end of the day, it is up to Parliament and we will debate the matter in committee.
I welcome that debate and I emphasise to the convener and members of the committee that I do not have a closed mind on the matter. I know that the committee has discussed it in detail and it is required—it is right—that we discuss it in more detail than perhaps we can today. I will listen with great care to members.
The Covid-19 crisis is a stark illustration of why Governments need the flexibility to be able to act quickly and decisively. If Parliament decided to so restrain the powers of Government that we were unable to do that without making primary legislation—which we all know is a process that should be undertaken with great care—we would risk making a mistake.
Presiding Officer, I am not sure how much time I have left. I will certainly try to fill it for you, if you would like.
There is spare time, so, unless your speech is an epic, we can let you get through it.
I have just a couple of pages left.
Sadly, at the moment, we are faced with other uncertainties that make it difficult to do what some stakeholders and members wish us to do, which is to set all our policies for the future of rural support, farming and food production right now. Those uncertainties include the fact that we do not know what sort of trade arrangements we will have with the EU, which is our largest export market. We do not know what tariffs might be imposed on different sectors, such as on lamb exports, and we do not know what might be needed to change the current support mechanisms. We know that there is pressure on milk and beef and that there could be pressure on fruit production, as we may or may not be able to harvest fruit crops in full. There are also local and international pressures on cereal—not least the fall in the maize price in the USA, which is consequent on the collapse in the oil price.
There are many uncertainties, so I put it to members that those who ask why we do not have a fixed policy right now are not taking account of those pressures. They are also overlooking the fact that in “Stability and Simplicity” we have the most detailed and clear exposition by any Government in the UK of its financial support policy.
Of course, there is uncertainty over the nature of future trade deals, but the foundation stone of our production in Scotland is a quality environment and quality produce. Those objectives can surely be reflected in the bill.
We have always espoused those as worthy objectives. Consequential on that, we have also stressed the importance of ensuring that agricultural produce—beef, for example—is not imported from countries that do not observe the same high quality standards that are observed in Scotland.
I repeatedly made that point to Michael Gove when he was the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. His answer was that the UK Government would include equivalence as a legal requirement in a future trade bill. That has not happened, and I am not quite sure whether it will. If it does not happen, what is to stop importation of cheaper beef from countries that, according to many people, do not observe the high standards of animal welfare that are displayed here? As that is uncertain, it makes it far more difficult to decide whether specific measures require to be taken. As an independent country, we would be free to ensure that we made such decisions ourselves, which Mark Ruskell alluded to.
I reiterate the intent to utilise the powers in the bill from 2021, to begin the simplifications and improvements that we need in our new policy approach. Examples include addressing the severity of penalties for infractions—often relatively minor ones—of the rules; making changes to the inspection system; and looking at the way in which the mapping system deals with small errors. Those are some of the nitty-gritty issues that we need to look at and on which farmers and crofters would welcome action.
Part 2 of the bill focuses on the collection and processing of data. The powers that we currently use go back to 1947, when agriculture was very different, so we have taken the opportunity to update and improve them by making them clearer and more transparent and by linking them to the general data protection regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. Those are issues of technical procedure and process rather than long-term policy—as in part 1.
I appreciate the recommendations of committees that the bill be approved by the Parliament today. I look forward to listening with care to what members say, and—assuming for the moment that members will want the bill to pass—I confirm that I want to continue to work with members constructively and am open to discussing possible amendments to the bill between its stages, despite the Covid-19 restrictions, if members want to have such discussions. I want to work collaboratively.
Above all, I want to deliver this bill, which is essential if we are to discharge our duties to the farmers and crofters of this country, through whose work we continue to have food on our tables.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill.
I call Edward Mountain to speak on behalf of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee.
16:11
I am pleased to contribute to the debate as convener of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee.
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a member of a family farming partnership.
The committee published its stage 1 report on the bill on 3 March. I thank the cabinet secretary for his letter of 29 April, which set out the Scottish Government’s response to our recommendations. I also thank everyone who took part in evidence sessions and provided evidence to the committee.
Overall, the committee supports the bill and is keen to see it progress, to facilitate a smooth transition for the agriculture sector following the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union. We also recognise the importance of providing greater clarity on the development of a long-term rural policy for Scotland. We have reflected the views of many stakeholders in calling for new primary legislation that sets out long-term policy to be introduced as soon as is reasonably possible.
On the purposes of the bill, multiple stakeholders expressed concern that the simplification and improvement provisions in section 2 reflect the lack of an overarching policy and are, potentially, open to different interpretations. We recognise the Scottish Government’s argument that to put a purpose clause in the bill would pre-empt the work of the farming and food production future policy group. Nonetheless, we encourage the Scottish Government to provide greater clarity on the underlying principles that are to be applied as measures are developed to simplify and improve common agricultural policy legislation.
Environmental stakeholders voiced concern that the potential for the bill to relax rules and red tape could lead to a regression in standards, including environmental protection and animal welfare standards. The cabinet secretary has provided helpful reassurance that the Scottish Government has no intention of relaxing those standards. We note the Scottish Government’s intention to address such matters further through its proposed continuity bill. As this bill progresses, we would welcome further detail on how the Government will ensure that there is no regression in standards.
The committee’s most significant concern is that the powers in the bill are not time limited. That view is shared by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, Scottish Land & Estates and the Law Society of Scotland—to name but a few. The Scottish Government has repeatedly asserted that it intends to use the powers for no longer than is strictly necessary.
We accept that there is continued uncertainty about the length of the transition and that there is a need to develop a long-term policy for Scotland following the UK’s departure from the European Union. However, the committee does not think that it is appropriate or proportionate for the Scottish Government to have, on an indefinite basis, the broad powers that will be conferred by the bill. Although I recognise that such is not the current Scottish Government’s intention, the power remains in the bill. Thus, a future Scottish Government could use those powers in perpetuity to amend rural policy through secondary legislation, without suitable, robust parliamentary oversight. That would be undemocratic. We therefore call for a sunset clause that will give due reference to the planned end of the proposed transition period in 2024.
The committee notes that the Scottish Government does not support that recommendation. However, we dispute its contention that our proposal would commit a future Government to a statutory deadline for implementing wholesale change. The committee proposes simply that, should a future Government determine that it needs more time to implement such change, it should be required to seek the renewed approval of the Scottish Parliament to extend the use of those powers beyond the date of the sunset clause. That would be democratic.
On the marketing standards and carcase classification provisions of the bill, many stakeholders have emphasised the crucial importance of maintaining alignment in standards across the UK internal market. That would avoid barriers to the movement and sale of agricultural products, post-Brexit. In that context, we welcome the Scottish Government’s repeated assurance that it has no intention of using those powers to disrupt the functioning of that internal market.
We also share the concerns that were highlighted by the DPLR Committee and various stakeholders, including NFU Scotland, regarding the blanket use of negative procedure to exercise the powers that will be conferred by sections 2 and 8 of the bill.
We welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to reflect further on the procedure to be used, in light of our specific recommendations to simplify and improve those measures, which have wider policy implications, and to make the powers that are conferred by section 8 of the bill subject to affirmative procedure.
The committee strongly welcomes the provisions of part 2 of the bill, which provide an important update to the legal basis for the collection and processing of agricultural data. We welcome the Scottish Government’s clarifications regarding the precise scope of those provisions—in particular, that the definition of “agricultural activity” is restricted to the data collection provisions in the bill, and would not affect the definition in any other context, such as for calculating or allocating farm payments.
In recognition of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee’s view that proper consideration should be given to the environmental impact of the policy measures that are introduced by the bill, we welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment that
“the environmental impacts of any changes will be robustly assessed under existing processes.”
I turn to long-term rural policy for Scotland. Scotland’s agriculture sector has already committed itself to reducing emissions by 75 per cent, and to contributing to a doubling in turnover in farming, fishing, food and drink by 2030. Given those commitments, many stakeholders have argued that the timetable for bringing forward a long-term policy for Scotland lacks urgency. The committee acknowledges the lack of clarity around the future operating environment for the agriculture sector, and hopes that the Scottish Government will recognise that there is also an urgent need to set out, as far as possible, how the powers in the bill will help to set Scotland’s agriculture industry on a realistic path towards meeting the 2030 commitments; otherwise, we believe that there is a genuine risk that those commitments will simply not be met.
In the short time that I have been allowed, I have sought to focus my remarks on certain key issues that were raised by the committee in its stage 1 report. In the debate, my colleagues may wish to cover those and other aspects of the report.
In conclusion, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee recommends that the general principles of the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill be agreed to. We look forward to the further work of considering potential improvements reflecting the committee’s recommendations—especially and particularly on the sunset clause—when we consider the bill at stage 2.
16:20
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests as an advocate who once specialised in agricultural law and in relation to my crofting and farming interests. It is unusual to speak in a debate that so neatly unites two of my main interests—law and farming. The mere mention of mapping errors takes me back to when I represented the cabinet secretary’s Government in the Scottish Land Court in many agricultural subsidy appeals.
I start by paying tribute to our hard-working farmers, crofters and growers in these difficult and unprecedented times. As I have said in the chamber on many occasions, those who work in our agricultural sector are the custodians of our countryside and despite these and many other challenges that the sector has faced over the years, Scottish agriculture has continued unabated to provide us with high-quality produce. As a result of the resilience of our agricultural sector, there is an expectation on those of us in the chamber to ensure that, as we leave the EU, our farmers, crofters and land managers have not only clarity, but a support system that works for them in practice. The Conservatives acknowledge the significant work that the sector has carried out to improve environmental standards, increase productivity and drive efficiencies, from planting hedgerows to sequester carbon, and using better-quality feeds to reduce methane output, to operating the latest technologies to increase profitability. Our farmers and crofters are at the forefront of delivering for our environment and it is more important than ever that we continue to support the sector so that it can continue on that upward trend.
I turn to the legislation that is before us today. The Scottish Conservatives are happy to support the bill at stage 1 to give farmers and crofters the security and certainty that they need, but with a view to improving the bill at stages 2 and 3. We acknowledge the need to ensure continuity as we leave the EU and note that, at this stage, the bill is an overarching one that sets in place the technical structures to allow farmers and crofters to continue to receive support. However, we also recognise the calls from organisations such as the NFUS, which notes in consultation with its members that there is an appetite for change and for
“the implementation of a new agricultural policy that better meets the outcomes desired by governments, consumers and the industry in terms of climate change ... and growth of Scotland’s food and drinks sector.”
Other submissions echo similar themes. Scottish Land & Estates stated:
“What the industry needs now is bold and ambitious leadership in setting a clear direction of travel for future policy.”
The UK Committee on Climate Change acknowledged the same. It said:
“The Scottish Government’s plans for a long-term policy framework to replace the EU Common Agricultural Policy are lagging behind both England and Wales.”
We share many of those concerns.
I accept that the cabinet secretary has readily acknowledged today and in correspondence with the committee that the bill is about process, not policy, and so already has a very focused purpose. We, too, will approach the bill in that spirit, but it would be remiss of me not to mention, as I have just done, the concerns of many stakeholders. We will continue as a party to press the Scottish Government for further clarity on its policy proposals for future farming support, but we recognise that that is a debate for another day.
I will address three specific aspects of the bill, the first of which—the absence of a sunset clause—has been referred to already. It is clear from reading the DPLR Committee and the REC Committee reports on the bill that there is a desire to ensure that a sunset clause is included in the bill at stage 2 to ensure that the powers conferred by section 2(1) of the bill do not remain available for an indefinite period. Scottish Land & Estates noted in its submission:
“The lack of a sunset clause means that the powers are not time-limited and could roll on beyond 2024 and the proposed transition period in Stability and Simplicity.”
The REC Committee report also recommends that
“as for section 2, section 6 of the Bill should be subject to a sunset clause”.
The Conservatives believe that such a mechanism will ensure that new policy is introduced after 2024, rather than allowing retained EU legislation to continue beyond then, with corrections being made through the negative procedure, which we do not think would benefit the agriculture sector in the long term. We share the concerns of many stakeholders, members who have spoken already in the debate and the relevant parliamentary committees that it would not be proportionate for the Scottish Government to have the potentially broad power conferred by section 2 of the bill on an indefinite basis. Although the Scottish Government appears to remain opposed to the insertion of a sunset clause, we acknowledge that it is open to discussion on the issue and we welcome that.
I turn to the proposed capping system. The bill introduces regulations to modify any provision of the main existing EU CAP legislation that relates to the setting or determining of ceilings on the amounts of any payments or expenditure for any purpose under the legislation. We acknowledge that those changes are coming down the track from Brussels, but we remain cautious that future Governments in Scotland may exploit that to reduce the funding available to agriculture. Farmers need clarity on what the capping of individual payments would look like. The NFUS is clear that all funds that are capped must remain within the agriculture portfolio and any potential saving should not be siphoned off into other areas of spending.
I share the views of my colleagues on the RECC that we need to scrutinise the measures effectively and need regular updates on the on-going development of the policy on capping and the specifics of future funding. Capping measures have the potential to impact larger agribusinesses. If we start capping, we need an evidence-based approach because jobs and livelihoods may be at risk. We urge the Government to provide us with more clarity on that section of the bill.
My final point is on the four nations approach. In leaving the EU, there is an opportunity to maintain the UK’s high environmental and animal welfare standards. We do not want a regression in standards and we want to be clear that consumers should know that when they purchase Scottish produce they are buying a product that has passed some of the highest standards in the world. I understand that the Government still proposes to introduce a continuity bill that will provide for the ability to align any area of Scots law with EU law in areas of devolved competence, although I believe that there may be some delay to that as a result of the coronavirus crisis. In the meantime, we are firmly of the view that we should keep to the highest standards, but we must be cognisant that, over time, greater alignment with the EU may well threaten the integrity of the UK internal single market that is so intrinsic to Scottish agriculture. Scotland trades three times as much with the rest of the UK as it does with the rest of Europe and we must be mindful of that proportion when setting any direction in standards. We believe that common UK frameworks must be agreed in order to ensure a consistent approach across all four nations.
The Scottish Conservatives are happy to support the bill at stage 1. We will look to amend the bill at stage 2 to address the various concerns that have been mentioned and that are all informed by evidence and reasoned judgment. We remain of the view that we need further clarity from the cabinet secretary on future policy and the specific nature of a new farm support model—and we need that soon. The bill, purposively, does not provide such clarification, although crucially, it provides farmers with certainty over continuing payments and the mechanism for such payments. For that reason, the bill has our support today.
16:28
The bill is important and I recognise the need for it to be passed swiftly in order to provide certainty on future payments for farmers and crofters. I am happy to support the bill at stage 1. However, our constituents may be asking why, in the current crisis, the Government has insisted that the first substantive debate that the Parliament has held in some months should be this one, rather than a debate on the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on their communities, including our rural communities.
I genuinely regret that the debate is taking place in a way that excludes many members, including some who have contributed to the stage 1 report that we are debating today. The Scottish Parliament should be leading by example and following best practice and advice. We are telling high-risk people to stay at home, but we are saying to any member who wants to participate in today’s debate that they must attend in person. We are telling businesses to make adjustments to enable home working, but we are failing to make adjustments that would allow members who cannot be here today to contribute to the debate through a videolink. That is not how workplaces should be operating during this crisis and that is not how legislation should be made. Labour called for the debate to be delayed until Parliament had put in place the technology to allow digital participation. I am disappointed that that call was not supported by other parties.
The Covid-19 crisis has shone a light on so many issues and Government announcements that are not being fully debated in this chamber, such as testing, personal protective equipment availability and economic support for our communities.
The Covid-19 crisis has also underlined the importance of a strong agriculture sector and a robust food supply chain. It has exposed the vulnerabilities in our food system, but it has also highlighted the resilience of workers in our critical food and drink sector. I offer my heartfelt thanks for their heroic efforts to all those workers—from the farmers who are fighting to rescue the summer harvest to those in our supermarkets who are working round the clock to keep essential supplies on our shelves. Their work has allowed us to avoid the major food shortages that we feared, and we owe them all a huge debt of gratitude. They should not have had to ask 32 individual local councils to designate them as key workers.
Although the sector’s hard work and innovation mitigated the worst impact of the sudden shift in demand from the food service sector to food retailer and the halt in people being able to move freely, the vulnerability of supply chains to major upheaval has been clear. The capacity to adjust rapidly, without chaos and cost, is seriously limited and we cannot ignore the precarious nature of our food system.
The sector has responded well to the crisis, but we should not be dependent on a largely reactive response. We need a more strategic, joined-up approach to managing our food system and robust contingency planning to ensure that the sector is prepared for future emergencies.
We need to better link food and farming policies and properly recognise their role in health, the environment and poverty. We need to end the siloed approach by introducing a more cohesive and comprehensive policy on food—from the farm to the fork to waste.
One way to help to deliver that would be through the development of a national food plan—a statement of policy, as proposed in the consultation on the good food nation bill. Although the decision to shelve that bill was perhaps unavoidable, it is still disappointing that that important piece of legislation will not get a chance to progress. However, we should not drop all elements of that bill. I urge the cabinet secretary to look at what we could incorporate from the good food nation bill into this agriculture bill. Since the bill that is before us was drafted and the stage 1 report was written, the world has changed; we need to change with it. We should start by looking at how we can amend the bill to underpin the development of a national food plan, as the Scottish Food Coalition recommended.
Other changes to the bill are needed. It provides powers for the Scottish ministers to make changes to common agricultural policy legislation to “simplify or improve” its operation and enable pilot schemes, but it does not define simplification or improvement, and the scale and purpose of pilots remain unclear.
We need more detail on the Government’s plans for the transition period and what it wants to achieve from the investment in agriculture and the wider rural economy, and we need clear direction for the future to provide as much certainty for the sector as we can. As we have heard, that clarity could be improved by the inclusion of a purpose clause in the bill.
In our stage 1 report, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee highlighted
“the views expressed by multiple stakeholders that the Bill lacks an overarching purpose or direction.”
In his response, the cabinet secretary expresses concerns about
“setting a statutory ‘direction of travel’ that proves impossible to deliver”
due to uncertainty about the future. That uncertainty is why we need a statutory purpose clause—a set of key values at the heart of policy making. A purpose clause would not pre-empt the work of the farming and food policy group. It is the role of the Government and Parliament to provide leadership in policy making. A purpose clause would set high-level objectives to guide policy making during the transition period and as we develop our long-term strategy.
Given the broad regulation-making powers that the bill would create, the need for more detail from the Government is also essential. I appreciate the need for secondary legislation to be used, but Parliament cannot be expected to write the Government a blank cheque. Therefore, I echo the Law Society of Scotland’s calls for more requirements for consultation and, where appropriate, the use of affirmative procedure to provide greater parliamentary scrutiny. That is particularly relevant to powers that allow ministers to “simplify or improve” the operation of CAP legislation, given the broadness of that language. At a minimum, the use of that power should be subject to adequate consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.
More broadly, that power and others must be time limited. That will address concerns about those sweeping regulation-making powers being available to ministers indefinitely, and reiterate the Scottish Government’s commitment to bring forward a new system by 2024. I recognise the concerns over a fixed date that the cabinet secretary outlined in his opening comments, but those concerns could be avoided by including a mechanism for ministers to extend the duration of the bill by secondary legislation if necessary.
The Covid-19 pandemic has brought home to us all the importance of food, and it has exposed the fragility of supply chains, as we only narrowly avoided major shortages in our supermarkets, and many vulnerable people still cannot book home delivery slots for their essential groceries. It has sadly highlighted the vulnerability of many families, with the Food Foundation estimating that 3 million families across Great Britain have gone hungry during the lockdown. It has revealed a new desire for local produce, with more people using farm shops and local dairy deliveries for their supplies—but we have also all witnessed the scenes of farmers pouring unused milk down the drain. If ever there was a need for a better contingency plan for food supplies and a national food plan, it is now. Let us wake up to the fact that the world has changed and use this bill as an opportunity to put in place a national food plan.
16:35
I thank the committee for its thorough report on the bill, and I send John Finnie’s best wishes to the chamber for this debate.
The Covid-19 crisis has certainly brought many issues to the fore, not least the vulnerability of our food system and the vital contribution that food sector workers—from the producers through to the fruit pickers, the processors, the independent shop owners and the women and men staffing our checkouts—make to our society. Crises hone our sense of what is important, and there are few more important things than having access to fresh, affordable and healthy food.
The Scottish Greens recognise the role of public subsidy in supporting our food system, and in delivering good management of our land and the wider environment, so we will be supporting the general principles of the bill.
We recognise the uncertainty that farmers have faced since the referendum in 2016 and the difficulties that still remain in designing a clear agricultural support system for a Scotland that is outwith the EU but closely aligned to it. In that regard, the transition period that the bill facilitates, and the research and development and pilot work that it proposes, are welcome. However, we agree with many stakeholders that the bill sorely lacks an overarching purpose and direction for how it should be used. The question remains, what are we transitioning to? What outcomes will we be seeking from the pilots and how will we judge success?
As it stands, the bill gives ministers extensive powers without addressing those questions or providing any guidance on how those powers should be used. Scottish Environment LINK has called on the Parliament to agree a purpose for the allocation of future agricultural support and has created a comprehensive list of outcomes for future support schemes. That is about recognising that we face twin climate and nature emergencies. Outcomes must tackle those crises head on, while building resilient food production systems that are able to withstand the inevitable shocks to come. Including those broad outcomes in legislation would not hinder the development of pilot schemes or the simplification of existing legislation, but it would provide clear direction and certainty to industry, Government and Parliament.
Farmers plan for decades, if not generations, ahead. They need to know that politicians and Governments are willing to do the same. Although uncertainty exists about how much subsidy money there will be in five years, or what type of trade deal the UK might end up with, Scotland’s strengths are clear. The quality of our environment and food go hand in hand, and although we might never be able to compete with more intensive forms of food production, whether those are within the UK or outside the EU, we have to build on our strengths. That is a clear certainty on which we should build objectives for the future.
The NFUS has urged ministers to drive forward the development of policy as a matter of urgency, and Scottish Land & Estates has called for a purpose section to be inserted at stage 2. Meanwhile, as we have heard, the Scottish Food Coalition has called for the bill to require ministers to set out a broader statement of policy on food, and I would encourage the Government to carefully consider that proposal. The requirement for a statement was a core part of the proposed good food nation bill, which has now been indefinitely postponed. Such a policy statement would have greatly influenced the delivery of a new agricultural support system, including how subsidies can be used to build resilience and diversity in supply chains, deliver on public health outcomes and address social justice issues around food.
I appreciate that the bill seeks to deal with specific mechanisms for farm payments, but consideration of financial support on its own, with no consideration of the wider policy framework that should influence those payments, is exactly the kind of silo thinking that the good food nation bill was supposed to address. Given that much of the development and consultation work for the statement of policy on food has already been carried out, I again urge the Government to consider how it can be included in the bill at stage 2.
I note the Government’s reassurance that there will be future consultation on wider agricultural policy but, given the long list of advisory groups and round tables that the cabinet secretary has convened since 2016, I am perplexed as to why we do not have a comprehensive agricultural policy ready to go right now.
Time is running out in our monumental task of delivering a 75 per cent reduction in climate emissions in 10 short years. That takes us to the end of session 7 and it is not a lot of time for us to turn the corner and to cut emissions in a way that also delivers a successful agricultural food economy in Scotland.
Our new Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 includes a framework for farming objectives, which have to be reflected in the new climate plan that is scheduled for December this year. The UK Committee on Climate Change has been critical of the Government’s lack of progress so far, and it would be unthinkable to have a revised climate plan without a clear policy on agriculture to accompany it.
We must ensure that our farmers can continue to receive the stable support that they have enjoyed under the CAP. To miss this opportunity to clearly set out the environmental, social and health outcomes that we want our farmers to deliver on would be a dereliction of our duty as parliamentarians, and it must be fixed through the bill.
16:41
The Liberal Democrats support this very necessary bill. Among other things, it will ensure that agricultural support payments to businesses up and down the land can be paid by the Scottish Government after the end of this year. That is even more important given the current crisis, when so many enterprises throughout Scotland are going through such difficult times. I am pleased that the bill will continue its progress through the parliamentary process to becoming law.
The importance of the bill can be seen by the broad support for it from stakeholders who were called to give evidence to the committee in the lead-up to the debate. The bill allows the Government time to develop primary legislation to implement its bespoke agricultural policy for after 2024, which is the year that it has set itself in which to have the legislation on the statute book.
The one point of controversy that I wish to focus on relates to the broad powers that the bill will give to the Scottish ministers under section 3, which is headed “Power to provide for the operation of CAP legislation beyond 2020”. It says:
“The Scottish Ministers may by regulations modify the main CAP legislation for the purpose of securing that the provisions of the legislation continue to operate in relation to Scotland for one or more years beyond 2020.”
It is clear why the Government does not want to put an end date of 2024 in the bill: it is concerned that it might not be in a position to put in place new primary legislation by then.
I understand that point, which has been reiterated by the cabinet secretary this afternoon, but it causes a problem. The majority of witnesses to the committee expressed concerns that section 3, as it is currently written, would allow the current Scottish Government or, indeed, any future Government to delay or even fail to implement the primary legislation that is needed to support the new agricultural policy for Scotland that everybody wants to see post-2024.
I have quotations from just three organisations that gave evidence to the committee. In his impressive evidence, Jonnie Hall of NFU Scotland said:
“Some sort of sunset clause, which is what we are talking about here, would be advantageous, but the time limit needs to be thought out very carefully.”
Yvonne Wight of the Scottish Crofting Federation said:
“as it stands, the power in section 3 of the bill will be available in perpetuity ... there are concerns about the CAP legislation continuing to operate in perpetuity.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 18 December 2019; c 5-6.]
The Law Society of Scotland said:
“Given the stated intentions of the Scottish Government that this is a transition Bill with work ongoing in relation to future policy, we question whether the powers under the sections in this part, in particular those powers in sections 2 to 4, should be time-limited by the introduction of sunset provisions. The powers in the Bill could be used by any future Government and this may not be done in line with the intentions of the current Government.”
The current Government might not be here for ever. [Interruption.] Steady on.
Even the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee called for a sunset clause when it examined the bill—although it suggested a date of 2030. It is the view of members of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, however, that that would extend the date too far. I refer to the unanimous view of the members of the committee, by quoting the recommendation that we made in our report. The report states:
“The Committee endorses the view expressed by the DPLR Committee, with the exception of its proposal that a sunset clause should be extended to 2030, which it considers to be too far in the future. It therefore calls on the Scottish Government, as the Bill progresses to stage 2, to bring forward proposals for a sunset clause extended to a date that gives due reference to the planned end of the transition period in 2024”.
We are not hung up on the sunset clause applying in 2024; the bill that has been introduced has been framed with the best intentions. However, it is the job of parliamentarians to examine the bill critically and to see how it can be improved—that is our job, and it is the purpose of the stage 1 debate.
I hope the cabinet secretary will acknowledge that there are, among stakeholders, real and legitimate concerns about section 3 of the bill, which have been highlighted in the committee’s report and by members of the Scottish Parliament from across the chamber this afternoon. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has said that his mind is not closed to considering a sunset clause, and that he will work with members from across the chamber at stage 2 to see how the bill can be improved to everybody’s satisfaction.
I now refer again to the evidence that Jonnie Hall of NFU Scotland gave to the committee on 18 December. He said that
“the time limit needs to be thought out very carefully”.—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 18 December 2019; c 5]
We do not want to restrict the actions of the Scottish Government. However, we do not want it to have the powers in perpetuity.
I would like the cabinet secretary to lodge a Government amendment that would place a time limit in the bill—perhaps to the end of the next session of Parliament, in 2026. That would give plenty of time to introduce primary legislation for a new bespoke agricultural policy for Scotland, which we all want. That would also ensure that we can all move forward together; it is important that we do that to pass this much-needed transition bill.
16:47
I am glad that we are, at last, having this debate. The bill was considered by the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee quite a while ago: I note that a number of organisations, including NFU Scotland, want the bill to proceed with some speed in order to provide a degree of certainty about payments, in these otherwise very uncertain times.
I regret that some of my committee colleagues are not here in person to deliver their views on the bill and the stage 1 report. However, a number of them have been in conversation with me and with other members, today.
Throughout consideration of evidence, there were many who wanted the bill to do more than it is intended to do. The bill is not a vehicle through which to overhaul the CAP or to completely revise how payments are made to farmers, and in the rural economy more generally. Thank goodness for that. As current events have shown, such a bill would possibly be largely irrelevant, and would have to be scrapped or heavily amended.
The bill is about process, and it is required as a result of the calamitous decision by the UK Government to leave the EU, which is regarded by the vast majority of Scots as a flawed decision—even more so in the situation in which we now find ourselves. The CAP will cease to apply at the end of 2020. Therefore, as a Parliament, we must take the necessary steps to continue to support our farmers and crofters. Agriculture is devolved, so it is right and proper that this Parliament should establish its own policy on it.
There will be a requirement, in time, for a definitive bill on future agricultural policy and payments. Thank goodness that the Scottish Government has not rushed into doing that now. In 2018, the Government’s response to a consultation on our exit from the EU was called “Stability and Simplicity”. That seems to be very apt now. Parliament, as the committee suggests, should accept the Scottish Government’s commitment not to use the legislation for any longer than it is required.
As a result of the global pandemic, the term “food security” has taken on even greater importance than it had previously. I hope that those who have advocated for a sunset clause will now agree with the NFU Scotland and others, and will realise that such a section would be inappropriate and is not required, given the Government’s commitment as set out in its response to the stage 1 report. Many of us are nervous about being here, and the Parliament’s timetable has been disrupted. It seems now to be even more inappropriate that a sunset clause be included.
As a result of the need for change, the Government has committed to some innovative agricultural pilot programmes. I suspect that the cabinet secretary did not have time to say anything about those because of the interruptions that he experienced during his opening speech. If he could speak about those schemes during his summing up, that would be welcome.
The bill addresses the need for alignment of standards—for standardisation across the UK marketplace. I think that most of us here would prefer to be seeing a commitment to standards that would still be aligned with those of the EU. The main driver, as always, must be the best interests of the Scottish agricultural industry and Scottish consumers. The people of Scotland expect nothing less from the Scottish Government.
The bill provides the ability to cap agricultural payments. That is broadly welcome; many people are horrified by the amount of taxpayers’ money that is given to already very wealthy farmers, so it is welcome that future payments will be based on a farm’s output, rather than on its area.
On that, it is worth noting the data-collection aspects of the bill. During his evidence to the committee, the cabinet secretary reassured me that the bill will not lead to a requirement for more information. It is important that data is collected in the most up-to-date way, and that it is relevant. If the data is to be credible, it must be used for the benefit of the nation by leading to good use of taxpayers’ money.
I promised my colleague Emma Harper that I would mention something that she would have brought up, had she been here. It concerns the producer organisations that are mentioned in the bill. Emma Harper represents 48 per cent of Scotland’s dairy farmers in her South Scotland region. She is very worried about continuity of milk supply, so she would like the cabinet secretary to clarify, in his closing remarks, whether the bill supports initiatives such as producer organisations and fruit and vegetable organisations, which can be hugely beneficial to farmers.
I would also like the cabinet secretary to say more about the agricultural transformation fund, because anything that we do now must be in the context of our commitment to mitigating climate change.
I will support the bill at decision time.
16:54
I make this contribution on behalf of my colleague Peter Chapman, who is unable to be present. He reminded me last night that one of the most important things that I should do is to draw members’ attention to his entry in the register of members’ interests.
Notwithstanding the fact that this speech is very much Peter Chapman’s contribution, I very much welcome the opportunity to speak this afternoon as a member for Mid Scotland and Fife. Colin Smyth said that Labour was not content about the debate being held. I understand that Covid-19 is the focus, but the bill is very important. It matters to a lot of people in a hugely important sector. We should not forget that, although it may be about process, how we support the agriculture sector matters.
Like the rest of my Scottish Conservative colleagues, I am supportive of the general principles of the bill. I agree whole-heartedly that there must be a smooth transition in the ability to make payments to the agriculture sector as the UK leaves the EU—that is essential, especially when it comes to allowing farm support payments to be made post-Brexit, and the desire for simplicity and stability after the initial exit from the EU has to be very welcome.
I think that the Covid-19 crisis has shown the importance of having resilience built into the agricultural industry in order to maintain the supply lines and keep food on families’ tables; Mark Ruskell made an important point about that. As such, it is easy to argue that the bill has become even more important now than it was before. We owe so much to our agricultural sector, which is critical to the wellbeing of our society.
The bill focuses only on the short to medium-term future—from now until 2024—which will take us almost halfway through to our ambitious 2030 targets for a 75 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the doubling of our output to £30 billion. That leaves us only six years to enact the large-scale changes that are needed to meet those challenging targets. If the industry is to have any chance of doing that, it needs to have far greater understanding of the support mechanisms and of the direction in which we are going.
A substantial reduction of emissions in the agricultural industry, coupled with a desired target of doubling turnover in farming, fishing and food and drink to £30 billion without a clear policy, is, at best, wishful thinking. It is in that vein that my colleagues have argued that a longer-term sustainable rural policy for Scotland should be put before Parliament as soon as is reasonably possible, thereby giving the industry as much time as possible to enable efficient, effective and environmentally beneficial practices.
We welcome the use of pilot schemes and acknowledge the many benefits of trialling policy changes to identify and inform longer-term policy development. However, the Scottish Government must keep Parliament and, most important, the industry up to date as to what those pilot schemes are and how they will operate. There needs to be full clarity and transparency.
The renewed focus on an outcome-based approach, as opposed to an area-based approach, to the calculation and allocation of farm payments is welcome. One of the few assets from Brexit—in my view, they are few—will be our ability to design a bespoke system for agriculture that fits Scotland’s farmers’ needs and desires, so it is good to see that the cabinet secretary is responding to that.
There is a need for additional assurance at stage 2 that there will be no relaxation of environmental and animal welfare standards as a result of the bill. The issue of standards needs to be subject to common framework discussions with the UK Government. It is imperative to protect the integrity of the internal UK market and to avoid any potential barriers to the movement and sale of products post-Brexit. Assurances are needed that the Scottish Government will not needlessly diverge from the rest of the UK, on which Scottish agriculture is so heavily dependent.
The committee was in general agreement that the use of the negative procedure should be amended. Section 2 of the bill would give ministers sweeping powers to modify regulations relating to direct payments, transfers and funding. Without additional safeguards, the powers that are conferred in the bill could be used to amend rural policy without parliamentary scrutiny. That is not an acceptable situation. Therefore, the inclusion of a sunset clause, which has been spoken about eloquently by Mike Rumbles and by Edward Mountain, the committee convener, is important.
A contentious issue is the possibility of individual payments being capped. If a Government were to decide to do that, that must be done in a fair and proportionate manner. It needs to be recognised that farms receiving large payments are regularly and intimately involved in agri-environment schemes and employ significant numbers of staff. Consequently, any schemes must be subject to wide-ranging consultation before they progress.
Scottish Conservatives welcome the general principles of the bill and see the need for simplicity and stability post-Brexit. The bill has the potential to make major changes to the agriculture industry in the next few years. It will have implications for a world in which Covid-19 looks set to stay for some time. Change is inevitable, and the industry accepts and expects that we will urge the cabinet secretary to grasp this opportunity by using the Government’s ability to pilot new schemes as soon as possible in order to give our farmers the guidance and clarity that they need.
17:00
It is fair to say that everyone who has the agriculture industry at heart would like to see the bill done and dusted as soon as possible. I am therefore pleased that we are having this stage 1 debate to help to move it forward.
It is also fair to say that stakeholders are, broadly, on the same page in relation to the bill. It is good to see common ground between the Scottish Government and industry bodies such as NFU Scotland and the Scottish Crofters Federation. We know that NFU Scotland’s view is that the smooth passage of the bill will be vital to ensuring stability and certainty in the period immediately following the UK’s departure from the EU and as the agriculture sector plays its role in the recovery from Covid-19. That approach has never been more important than it is now, as we see the UK careering towards the cliff edge of a no-deal Brexit at the end of the year.
It is with that last point in mind that many stakeholders welcomed the proposal for public intervention and private storage aid. Section 5 of the bill gives the Scottish ministers powers relating to “intervention purchasing”, which involves paying private companies to store product rather than immediately placing it on the market. Clearly, none of us would want to see a return to the EU’s discredited milk lakes or butter mountains, and no one is suggesting anything on that scale. However, those provisions are designed to enable public authorities to manage prices in agricultural markets during periods of volatility. Although I am sure that none of us would wish to see such an intervention being used, if we have to endure a no-deal Brexit the legislation might be required sooner rather than later.
Steven Thomson, policy adviser at Scotland’s Rural College, stated in evidence to the committee:
“There also needs to be scope to maintain intervention. The EU has that potential, and America uses it in emergencies. We need to have the scope for storage and intervention in the markets in exceptional circumstances. A hard Brexit or a no-deal Brexit may be such an exceptional circumstance in which we might need scope for that far sooner than we think.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 27 November 2019; c 18.]
Of course, such provisions would be used only in market crisis situations. However, as the cabinet secretary explained in his oral evidence to the committee, the Government was already looking at an exceptional circumstance that would require intervention using the powers conferred by section 5. That is—or was, and might be again—the previously made preparation for creating a compensation scheme for sheep meat in the event of the UK’s leaving the EU without a deal. That would—and still could—result in the introduction of significant tariffs on sheep meat exports, as the cabinet secretary alluded to in his opening remarks.
That is an important aspect of the bill that gives some comfort to the industry, which is why it has offered its widespread support for the inclusion of such powers. It also highlights the strong possibility that public intervention might yet be required to protect specific agricultural sectors in Scotland against specific exceptional circumstances—for instance, in the event of a no-deal exit from the EU.
I turn to the issue of a sunset clause, which has had quite a bit of coverage in the debate. In his opening remarks the cabinet secretary said, in relation to such a clause—I will paraphrase his comment—that now is not the time. When the committee signed off its stage 1 report, it endorsed the view of the DPLR Committee that there should be a sunset clause, but not that committee’s view that such a clause should be extended until 2030. However, that was then and this is now. It must be said that when the stage 1 report was published on 3 March, we did not yet know the impact of the coronavirus.
We have ambitious targets on agriculture ahead of us—not least that of doubling the value of Scotland’s food and drink sector under “Ambition 2030: Industry Strategy for Growth”. However, such targets also bring challenges, not the least of which will be ensuring that, over the same period, Scottish agriculture will make a significant contribution to a 75 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases, moving onwards to net zero by 2045.
Stability and simplicity are required and will be a must over the coming years up to 2024; another must is the need to ensure that the development of policy for the sector post 2024 is driven forward by the Scottish Government with an objective of introducing new primary legislation as soon as is reasonably possible in order to ensure the enactment of a new policy that goes beyond the stability and simplicity approach.
It is worth noting that NFU Scotland, while recognising the aspirations and intentions behind the inclusion of a sunset clause in the bill, now has concerns with such an approach, particularly with such a date being fixed in legislation. Its position is that fixing a sunset clause in legislation could equally constrain agriculture if, by 2024, the wider operating environment resulting from the UK-EU trade discussions or other current unknowns that could be destabilising—such as economic, environmental or social issues—is such that stability and certainty in agricultural policy are still required.
As NFU Scotland states:
“it is impossible to predict what political, market, regulatory and economic operating environment the agricultural industry will be operating in by 2024.”
It is for that reason that NFU Scotland believes that the Scottish Government should not be legislatively bound to implement a new agricultural policy by that date or any other specific date. That said, it is fair to say that development of future policy beyond stability and simplicity must get under way as soon as possible to ensure that the industry keeps up with the direction of travel.
I look forward to stages 2 and 3 of the bill and I hope that the cabinet secretary, in summing up, will have a bit more to say regarding a sunset clause in particular. This is not the time for an arbitrary statutory timescale for wholesale change to rural support services as we try to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic.
17:06
Although I recognise that the bill is necessary, it is not urgent. We should not be debating anything but our response to Covid-19 and emergency legislation while not all members can attend the Parliament to vote and while this Parliament cannot pass legislation virtually.
We are also asking people to stay at home unless their reason for leaving is to contribute to the fight against Covid-19; this legislation does not do that, so we are setting a poor example. It is unacceptable that the Scottish Government has forced us to break the Covid-19 regulations that it has set.
There are also members of the committee that took evidence on the bill who cannot be here today, which means that we cannot find out what they have learned from taking that evidence. There is a difficulty in the processes of the Parliament when those who are supposed to inform members about the bill cannot be present in the chamber.
Although the bill is necessary, it is not urgent. Neither does it deal with the shape of farming support going forward—there is no vision and no ambition; it is just the same old support on offer. The Scottish Government should have been planning for what will replace the CAP, the form it will take and the public goods that will be required from crofters and farmers in return for that public support. Unfortunately, the Government has squandered that opportunity.
The cabinet secretary said today that the bill will provide stability until 2021. That is next year, and anyone who knows anything about farming and crofting knows that a year does not provide stability for them. They need to know the direction of travel. Our crofters and farmers will end up with no idea of what is to come or what public goods will be supported.
Covid-19 makes everyone’s future more precarious, and the Government should be providing certainty where that is possible. We have always said that public money must pay for public goods, which must include supporting local economies and providing jobs and income.
Let me make it absolutely clear that we believe that stability should continue to be provided until 2024. Moreover, from 2021, in addition to the continued support that farmers know they can have and that they will get for the years until 2024, we will be trying pilot schemes of new initiatives. The stability will continue not until 2021 but until 2024 under our plan.
That suggests to me that there will be no change in policy until 2024. How on earth will the farming and crofting sector meet its climate change challenges if there is no change in how support is distributed until 2024?
We need a joined-up policy across departments. For years, we have been telling crofters and farmers to diversify to make a living, yet that diversification could mean that they are not getting the financial help that they require during the Covid-19 crisis. All arms of Government need to sign up to and support policies. For instance, we have asked farmers and crofters to consider entering the hospitality industry but, in the current situation, self-catering accommodation does not attract any support.
The bill does not address the food chain, and the difficulties in that regard have been exposed during the Covid-19 pandemic. We hear of people not being able to access food because they have to isolate or because they cannot afford it; in contrast, we see farmers pouring milk down the drain because they have no market for it. That is absolutely obscene. For those of us who have plenty, that is heartbreaking to watch, so I cannot imagine how it must feel to those who are hungry or those whose families are hungry. The bill does nothing about that.
The industry is crying out for labour. Crops are going to rot in the fields, which could lead to a food shortage, but, yet again, the bill does nothing about that. The Government can support businesses through the crisis with finance, but that finance cannot prevent crops from rotting in the fields.
Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, access to food has been a big issue, yet the bill does not deal with that. If ever we should be looking for an agriculture policy that goes from field to fork, we should be doing it now. During the lockdown, 3 million people in Britain have gone hungry, 1.5 million have gone a whole day without eating and 7.1 million have had to reduce or skip meals because they could not afford enough for everyone in the household. That is pretty grim, yet, rather than the good food nation bill being treated as urgent, it has been delayed due to the pandemic. At the very least, the bill that we are discussing today must include a right to food until such time as we can get comprehensive legislation through the good food nation bill.
Agriculture and access to food are intrinsically linked but, historically, the Government has too often taken a siloed approach to policy and legislation in the area, and families are now suffering as a result. The bill was an opportunity to change that, but the Government has not taken it.
17:12
At this most difficult of times, as the Parliament is endeavouring to continue business, I commend the Parliament staff for the huge effort that they have put in to ensure that members can continue to represent their constituents. I understand that the Parliament is considering proxy voting to give a voice to members who cannot be here, and I had hoped that this speech would be the first proxy speech, but I appear to have been beaten to it.
My colleague and friend Stewart Stevenson, who sits on the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and who represents the large food-producing constituency of Banffshire and Buchan Coast, cannot be here, as he is in the category of those who must shield—although only just, I should say. I will endeavour to echo his voice in a small way. I have been liaising with him on the points that he would have made in the debate. I stopped short of paying further tribute to him by wearing his galluses, tempting as that was, although I believe that our hairstyles are similar at the moment.
Stewart told me that, at the beginning of his seven weeks of lockdown, the fields that he walked past near his home in Boyndie for his daily exercise were winter torn and largely bare. However, when I spoke to him yesterday, he recounted that he had walked past the same fields and seen spring barley 9 inches tall. That made him think how easy it would be to imagine that the farmer needed only a few weeks’ work to transform a field from winter to spring, but, of course, we know better—that barley was long in planning. The farmer’s decision about what to plant was made at least as far back as last autumn, and possibly even earlier, when she or he made financial projections that enabled a decision on how much seed to order and assessed the potential market for the crop.
As they made those calculations, they knew that they were part of a chain of suppliers and buyers who were making similar calculations. The sheep farmers would have had to consider the potential for the lamb sales later this year when they put the yowes to the tup last year. They were probably cautious, because they might have foreseen difficulties in selling to France, which we all know is a very important market for Scottish lamb. Lamb producers in Scotland are particularly worried about a post-Brexit trade agreement, and Angus MacDonald has mentioned issues with regard to the lamb sector.
We can be certain that no Scottish farmer incorporated a viral pandemic into their spreadsheet projections last autumn. If we let that difficulty translate into reduced farming profitability, we face the prospect of having less of our home-grown food on our tables. That simply cannot happen from an economic, social and environmental perspective—and from a health perspective, too.
The agriculture bill that is before us this afternoon is more vital in content than ever. Most critical is its timing and our ability to be fleet of foot as we recover from this crisis and help our agricultural sector through the difficulties that lie ahead, as well as with Brexit. Only if we give certainty to our farmers and crofters—and all the businesses that work with and rely on them—about the support that they will receive will their actions in planning for 2021 and beyond preserve that most vital of industries.
So, how will the bill help—and why now? I will deal with the “now”. Few farmers are without an overdraft. Stewart Stevenson believes that the banks’ sentiment towards their agricultural creditors is unlikely to improve, and their margins are being squeezed by a base rate of nearly or actually zero. He says that some certainty on the farmers’ balance sheets will help to keep the banks at bay—and he speaks, of course, as an ex-banker.
The earlier we can act to deliver certainty, the better the outcome will be. A pound promised now and guaranteed through legislation is worth a lot more than a pound promised in September, even if it were to reach the relevant bank account on the same day. That is because, in a crisis, too many creditors will seek to minimise adverse outcomes by calling in loans if “bad” looks as if it may be followed by “disastrous”. Lenders or trade creditors winnae hing aboot, as they say in Stewart’s constituency. They will want to recover as fast as possible.
The bill’s most important purpose for farmers is:
“From 1 January 2021, to enable the continued operation of current CAP schemes and policies”.
That has already been promised to farmers, but we must not delay progress towards creating a statutory framework, especially at a time when there are so many other sources of uncertainty for everyone. There are not many areas on which we can give certainty right now, so when a chance comes along we have a duty to do so. If we increase doubt by not progressing this legislation, that will simply translate into more difficulty on farmers’ and crofters’ balance sheets.
It is Stewart’s view that the bill does not change policy but provides the powers to do so in the future, with the consent of Parliament. He believes strongly that the bill is an essential part of protecting the support for our farmers that previously came as part of our membership of the EU’s common agricultural policy. I represent a large rural and agricultural constituency that neighbours Mr Stevenson’s, and I am in complete agreement with him.
The noises from Westminster are clear. Despite strong objections on social and economic grounds, the UK Government has said that it will stick to the Brexit transition period ending on 31 December. Many of us, including myself, will make the case for changing that date, but we have to accept that the parliamentary arithmetic at Westminster is not in our favour. We would be fools to gamble on winning the argument, because of that large majority. When that happens, farmers and farming will be hit at precisely the moment when farming’s huge importance will be growing even more. Stewart has asked me to relay to members today that it is incumbent on us to support the bill, to guarantee our farmers some certainty now.
We now come to closing speeches. I remind members of the importance of maintaining social distancing, especially when entering and leaving the chamber.
17:19
As I said in my opening comments, Labour will support the bill at stage 1, because we understand its importance. However, I reiterate the comment that I made earlier that delaying the debate by a couple of weeks, so that members who are unable to be here today could have participated virtually, would not have in any way detracted from that importance. We have already seen a number of members giving proxy speeches when there would have been an opportunity in a couple of weeks for those members to be present virtually.
More importantly, such a delay would have allowed what would have been the first substantive debate on the crisis that we face over Covid-19 to have taken place this week, instead of waiting more weeks before that debate takes place. I wonder what our constituents must think about our priorities.
Although we will support the bill today, we also want to see improvements as it passes through the parliamentary process. I welcome the commitment of the cabinet secretary to work with other parties to deliver—I hope—the changes that we need.
A recurring theme throughout today’s debate has been the concerns of stakeholders over the lack of clarity and direction from the Government both during the transitionary period and in beginning the process of developing a new agricultural support scheme.
At every step of the way, it seems that it is stakeholders, and not Government, that have led the way. NFU Scotland, Scottish Environment LINK and Scottish Land & Estates have all set out proposals for a new system and for how we should use the transition period to begin the process of moving to that new system, and WWF has produced detailed policy options for reducing emissions.
We have seen little information from Government since it published “Stability and Simplicity” almost two years ago. The only changes that have been suggested so far are the largely technical ones that were set out by the simplification task force. We have had no detail on what other changes are being considered to improve on or simplify common agricultural policy implementation in Scotland and no detail on what the pilot schemes might cover, what their budgets could be or how they will be funded.
The transition period must be used to lay the groundwork for the new system, by developing and trialling schemes and, crucially, by providing training to ensure that farmers and crofters are equipped to deal with any new system. Put simply, the bill as it stands is a missed opportunity to deliver a clear direction towards which the sector should transition. The sooner we have a clear vision of what we want to replace the CAP, the more effectively we will be able to use the transition period to develop the detail. The clock is ticking.
As many members have highlighted during the debate, a purpose clause would provide more clarity on that direction of travel, and a sunset clause would provide more certainty on the timescales for bringing us towards a new system. There is very much still a discussion to be had about the exact wording of a purpose clause, and I look forward to having those discussions, but it is clear that a majority of members recognise that there are benefits to setting out a clear set of principles in the legislation. It would provide reassurance on the long-term direction of agricultural policy and help to address reservations about the broad enabling powers that the bill includes by providing a set of guiding principles for the use of those powers.
Likewise, a sunset clause would simply provide a statutory basis for commitments that the Government has already made. The cabinet secretary has consistently stated that the transition period will last only until 2024. Underpinning that commitment in law would provide a welcome guarantee that that remains the case. As I have said before, any sunset clause should of course include the option of an extension in order to avoid a cliff edge. The clause would simply be a matter of making clear that the default position is for the legislation to be temporary, in line with the Government’s own desire. Establishing a new system within the proposed timelines is essential, and passing the bill with no time limit sends the wrong message.
CAP funding is a lifeline for this key sector, but we know that the current system is not fit for purpose. We need a new system that distributes funding more fairly, supports and incentivises sustainability and environmentally friendly practices, and protects and enhances animal welfare, while building a more productive and resilient industry. There is a clear consensus among stakeholders on the need for a system that delivers on both environmental aims and productivity. Indeed, the sector faces ambitious targets on carbon reduction, from the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019, and on productivity, from the ambition 2030 strategy.
The agriculture sector urgently needs a support system that better enables those aims to be met. An agricultural support system with environmentalism at its heart will allow the sector to make the emissions reductions that are needed. Equally, any new support system must also underpin productivity and growth as well as environmentalism. Those two aims should not be thought of as competing, and it is critical that neither is achieved at the expense of the other.
The bill does not set out a detailed long-term plan for agriculture and no one is arguing that it should, but it is clear that it should provide more direction and that failing to do so is a missed opportunity.
It would also be a missed opportunity not to wake up to the fact that the world has changed in recent weeks. The Covid-19 crisis is, first and foremost, a public health crisis. It is also a crisis that has exposed the need for a fairer, healthier and more sustainable food system. With the good food nation bill being dropped because of the crisis, we need to adapt—it cannot be business as usual. We should take the elements of the good food nation bill that the Government supported and incorporate them into this bill. That includes a statutory commitment to a statement of policy on food. It would be a dereliction of duty not to take this urgent opportunity to safeguard our fragile food system against future crises as best we can, shoring up resilience and future food security. That statement of policy should include a contingency plan for tackling future interruptions to supply. If this is not the time to do that, I do not know when that time will be.
17:25
I am pleased to be closing for the Scottish Conservatives in today’s stage 1 debate but, as other members have done, I make this contribution on behalf of another member who cannot be here in Parliament today to deliver it in person. In this case, it is Finlay Carson, who is at home in his constituency in beautiful Galloway.
I also refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests as I am a partner in the farming business of J Halcro-Johnston & Sons, and to Finlay Carson’s and my membership of NFU Scotland.
We have heard some strong contributions from members across the chamber, reflecting the circumstances in which the agriculture sector finds itself as a result of Covid-19. They have not been immune to the challenges, and that makes today’s debate an important stage in ensuring that the sector has the clarity and policies in place that will help it to emerge stronger from this crisis and to continue in the years ahead, when we are beyond the transition period of exit from the European Union.
As highlighted by my colleagues, we support the general principles of the bill, but today’s debate has highlighted the need for proper frameworks and funding mechanisms to emerge in the future stages of the bill. As deputy convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, Finlay Carson has emphasised that the principles of the bill must be designed with environmental concerns in mind. The Covid-19 crisis has inadvertently brought benefits to our environment, with fewer emissions from many sources because there has been less activity. However, that does not mean that we can be complacent about the massive challenges that we face in tackling climate change, and our agriculture sector is at the heart of that. It is ready and willing to take up the challenge.
As Finlay Carson has often said in the chamber and at committee, we cannot continue to allow the agriculture sector to be demonised when it comes to the challenges of reducing emissions and enabling better practices. Agriculture has stepped forward and started to address those issues. The industry, including the NFUS, has long recognised the part that it must play in achieving the ambitious 75 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 on the way to hitting the net zero target by 2045. As we know, there is to be an unfortunate but inevitable delay in an update to the climate change plan, which makes it even more important that the right policies are in place throughout the bill. Faster and further is what is required when it comes to addressing climate change.
It is therefore disappointing that the Scottish National Party Government has not shown greater urgency in outlining a plan of action. The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee understands that the period of simplification and improvement will run until 2024. We need to get it right now. Who knows when we will fully emerge from the Covid-19 crisis?
When we do, there will also need to be a sense of urgency to outline how future policy will be developed. Stability is key for the industry in the coming years, but change must also be instigated if the industry is to adapt, then change and, ultimately, deliver. We have already heard from the chief executive of the UK Committee on Climate Change that the Scottish Government’s plans for a long-term policy framework to replace the EU common agricultural policy are lagging behind those of England and Wales.
On environmental schemes, the funding for environmental and climate management interventions is a serious area of concern, with the provisions in the bill giving limitations on sources of funding and, potentially even more seriously, if not introduced carefully, capping on that funding. That would mean that the agriculture sector could lose out on lowering specific sectoral emissions as part of the overall work to reduce emissions.
When it comes to environmental standards, it is vital that a common framework is agreed across the four nations of the United Kingdom in order to maintain that commitment to the highest possible environmental standards. The same principles should apply when it comes to the agriculture regulatory frameworks that end up as part of the bill. The integrity of the UK single market is vital for the industry. It is therefore critical that the nations work within a commonly agreed framework and that although, as is currently the case, there is flexibility when it comes to the playing field, the whole of the UK plays within the same set of rules.
In Mr Carson’s constituency of Galloway and West Dumfries, as well as in other areas of Scotland, an area that will be vital in the coming years is agritourism monitor farms. It is welcome to see that groups have been set up to provide further support and expertise as the programme continues. That is exactly what will be needed, given that the tourism industry is among the hardest hit during the coronavirus crisis. The diversification of farming businesses is something that can help to sustain them. I have been asked to highlight monitor farms, which have already sold £20,000-worth of farm tours for the spring and summer seasons, including such things as lambing experiences. However, that cash has, obviously, already been spent.
Tourism income aside, there is the urgent need to get in place policies that recognise the huge potential role that monitor farms can play in testing and in providing future policy with regard to climate change and the protection of biodiversity. The principle of monitor farms has been proven and they are widely accepted and respected as the right way forward by the agriculture sector. The monitor farm model should form the foundation of future pilot schemes as soon as possible, as delay is no good for anyone.
The agriculture bill is vital, but we must ensure that we get it right. With the current state of affairs, it is important that sufficient time is set aside by the Government, alongside requisite measures, to ensure that the right scrutiny can take place at stage 2. That is when Conservative members will seek to ensure that our industry is protected in terms of resources, policies and the highest possible standards in the years to come in a world outside the European Union.
17:32
In these times, I feel that those who are listening to the debate, particularly those who are interested in farming and the rural economy, want to see politicians working together. We have largely seen that this afternoon, and I very much appreciate the clear statements from—I think—all the leading Opposition party spokespeople that they will support the general principles of the bill. For my part, I restate for the record that I am keen—as always—to work with members to improve the bill in so far as we can.
There were some very good contributions, including from Mr Cameron, Liz Smith, and Mike Rumbles. The convener of the committee gave a fair account of the committee’s report, and members of other parties made very useful and positive remarks. I therefore start by broadly thanking members for the spirit of the debate. However, I think that this is an important debate and I contest the point that we could postpone the bill, because it needs to be done. Farmers want us to do our work; they expect us to do our work. The bill does not need to be passed this month or next month, but it needs to be passed within a time limit, and given that we do not want to leave things until the last moment, we need to get on with our work. The public would expect us to do that—it is important to say that.
I absolutely agree that members are keen to debate the longer-term policy with regard to farming, the environment, food production and animal welfare standards. Many members quite rightly made points about that, and they are all very fair points indeed. However, although they are fair points, they are not directly relevant to the purpose of the bill, which is about a mechanism and a process. The bill is about providing a lever; it is a tool in the box—a spanner that enables us to do a specific task. Spanners are not designed to save the planet; they are designed to do something specific. That is what some legislation is about, and this bill is one such piece of legislation.
That does not mean that members have not made valid points, but that, with all due respect, some of those points are not directly relevant to our job with this bill today.
As I understand it, the core purpose of the bill is to ensure alignment with the EU common agricultural policy. That policy will change in 2021, when the EU sets nine new objectives. We need to incorporate those objectives in our own agricultural policy if we want to stay aligned with the EU.
The cabinet secretary can surely see that our best chance of rejoining the EU—maybe as an independent nation—would be through an alignment with the EU CAP for 2021 to 2027. Those objectives could be incorporated in the bill.
That is an interesting point, but the purpose of the bill is rather different. This Government absolutely believes that EU membership is the best option for Scotland and the UK, as I stated earlier. The bill’s specific purpose is to allow us to simplify, and improve on, the operations of the EU legislation. Without the bill, we would be unable to do that.
I will not labour the point, but I hope that most members will feel that, in making it, I am being absolutely sincere about the nature of the function and purpose of our job today. I am not necessarily critical of differing points of view; the debate is perfectly legitimate, but it is neither for today nor for this bill, and nor is it for stages 2 or 3.
The issues around a sunset clause and a purpose clause are important. Mr Rumbles made the key speech in that regard and went further with his suggestion of a specific alternative—something that we do not hear often on these benches in this type of debate. That point was interesting. I undertook that it would be considered carefully and that we will have discussions about it.
That is all well and good. However, I have met farmers, often at the behest of members. Mr Cameron, for example, invited me to meet some farmers from Lochaber, with whom I had a serious discussion, as they were very worried about future financial support. I hope that I was able to provide some welcome reassurance, particularly regarding the continuance of payments as part of the less favoured area support scheme. I was grateful to Mr Cameron for hosting and arranging that useful meeting.
I do not mean to be facetious or flippant, but I tell you this: not one farmer or crofter at that meeting mentioned a purpose clause or a sunset clause. They would be interested in actual sunsets, not legislative ones. I am not being facetious; those things do not directly concern farmers. Members might say that that was not their purpose in raising those issues and that they did so to discuss long-term policy—of course people are interested in long-term policy.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I will finish the point and then certainly give way.
My point is that farmers and crofters have an awful lot to worry about at the moment—my goodness me, I do not really have to enumerate those worries. Gillian Martin made that point very well—I do not know whether she was impersonating Stewart Stevenson or whether the speech was his offering—in her interesting and unusual contribution, which I thoroughly enjoyed.
She made the good point that the farmers who are concerned at the moment are practical, down to earth and welcome our efforts to continue to ensure that they get financial support in their bank account. I think that those farmers were grateful and satisfied that we secured that support to the tune of 81 per cent of the CAP payments—more than £340 million of loan payments, £430 million of pillar 1 payments and approximately £80 million of convergence payments, just before lockdown; in fact, it was weeks before it.
The fact that we were able to do that as a Government and to complete those complex tasks—thanks to the diligence of public servants throughout the country and to the rural payments and inspections division—is what is really important to them, rather than the minutiae of purpose or sunset clauses, which no farmer or crofter has ever mentioned to me.
I think that the cabinet secretary is absolutely correct that farmers are concerned about the practicalities just now, but they are also concerned because the bill is about procedures. The whole debate about a sunset clause is about the level of scrutiny that can be given to decisions that are being made. As it stands, there is a concern that the Scottish Government could, if it so wished, take such decisions into its own hands. For parliamentary democracy, that is not right.
Earlier, I said that Liz Smith made a good contribution and I think that she has made further worthwhile points. I totally agree, and I agreed when I responded to Mr Rumbles that they are very important points for us as parliamentarians. The distinction that I was trying to make, and which I hope that I have made, is that farmers perhaps have less interest in such points than they do in the practicalities, which I think Liz Smith agreed with. We will come back to those points. As a Government, we want to ensure that we are subject to appropriate scrutiny. We have never shied away from that, and we will not start to do so now.
The non-regression issue, which several members raised, is in a sense already dealt with by previous legislation that we have passed, including the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. They contain legislative provisions that are the law—we must abide by them, and rightly so. Those provisions already commit us to non-regression. If there is a thesis that somehow, we could do lots of regressive things, we cannot. We are constrained by the law and the law is in place.
Presiding Officer, I have no idea how much time I have, so I can fill whatever time you want me to.
If the cabinet secretary wishes to draw his remarks to a conclusion now, I am sure that that would be most welcome—[Interruption.]
I hear suggestions that winding up would be appropriate, and not for the first time while I have been standing in this place, it has to be said.
I am very grateful for the broad approach that members have taken today. I think that we are doing a good thing in scrutinising this legislation. I am sure that we will make progress at stages 2 and 3, and I very much look forward to working with members across the chamber to do what we can to make sure that we are able to adapt our policy in a way that will help farming, crofting and the environment, enable high-quality food to continue to be produced and preserve food security in an increasingly uncertain planet.
I thank all members and I look forward to continuing to work with them in the same spirit in the weeks to come.
That concludes our stage 1 debate on the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill.
Previous
Finance and Economy (Covid-19)