Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 18, 2024

Official Report 1522KB pdf

---

Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-13663, in the name of Mairi Gougeon, on the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

19:23  

I am delighted to open this stage 3 debate on the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill.

I begin by thanking the convener and all members of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. Their work and scrutiny throughout stages 1 and 2, along with their support for taking a framework approach, has made for a really effective piece of legislation. I also thank the other members who may not sit on that committee but who have also engaged constructively as the bill has progressed. I also extend my particular thanks and gratitude to the members of the bill team for their hard work and support, their expertise and their tireless efforts on the bill.

Last, but certainly not least, I express probably the most thanks to those from across Scotland who responded to the bill consultation, including the almost 600 members of the public who attended events online or in person, the almost 400 people who sent written responses and the dozens who gave evidence to the committee. I thank the many stakeholders including NFU Scotland, Scottish Environment LINK, the Scottish Crofting Federation, Scottish Land & Estates and many others who have also engaged with us directly. I thank all who have worked to get the bill into the strongest position that it can possibly be in.

The bill and the secondary legislation and framework of agricultural support that will stem from it affect us all. The bill is the foundation of how we will support food production, tackle the challenges of climate change and work to restore nature. Ultimately, we need the legislation and the support that flows from it to enable our farmers and crofters, and the wider rural communities of which they are an integral part, to thrive. The core intent of the bill is to provide for a support model that enables our farmers and crofters to grow more of our food more sustainably, to farm and croft with nature and to assist in efforts to meet our nation’s climate change outcomes.

The powers of the bill are about realising our vision for agriculture—a positive vision of our nation being recognised as a global leader in sustainable and regenerative farming, and one in which our producers play the essential role of contributing to our food security, driving our rural economy and ensuring that our world-renowned food and drink industries continue to thrive. It is pertinent that we hold this debate and have debated amendments to the bill at stage 3 in the week in which many of us, I am sure, will visit the Royal Highland Show, which is our country’s biggest showcase of all things food, farming and rural.

As I have previously said in the chamber, Scotland has a proud and long-standing heritage as a farming nation, and agriculture is the cornerstone of our rural economy. The introduction of the bill last September was an important step on our journey of transformation, as we transition to a new way of supporting farming into the future. The closing of stage 3 is another milestone, but by no means is it near the end of that journey. Our route map sets out broadly how we will continue to progress and the rural support plan, which has been a matter of valuable discussion both in and outwith the committee, will soon take up that mantle. I will continue to work with our farmers, crofters, land managers and stakeholder organisations as we continue that vital work and look to deliver on our ambitions.

During the stage 1 debate, I welcomed the committee’s agreement that a framework bill is appropriate to establishing a long-term basis for future support schemes. The bill has to enable the multiyear transformation in support for farming and rural communities that I have spoken about. That will be a complex process and will include a transition over time from the complex and extensive assimilated law scheme rules. However, it is right that, as a Government, we take the necessary time to develop the detail of our future policy with the people who are most affected by it. That is vital in order to deliver on our commitment of no cliff edges for our farmers and crofters.

That is why I also welcome the committee’s recognition that a framework bill will enable the support measures to be co-developed and delivered over the long term, as needed, and to provide the necessary flexibility and adaptivity. Over recent years, events have continued to show us that we need that flexibility in order to be effective in our response to any and all future geopolitical, economic, climate and nature challenges. That flexibility is also central to enabling our unwavering commitment to co-developing and co-designing the details of future support schemes.

I have been clear about my intention to be transparent with stakeholders and the Parliament. Over the past years, I have worked closely with the sector and rural partners to develop the proposals that we brought forward in the bill, as well as what we have introduced through our route map. Throughout the bill’s passage through the Parliament, I have continued to work with stakeholders and across parties to try to reach consensus and co-develop the contents of the bill.

In that spirit, I very much welcomed the willingness of members across parties to engage constructively on amendments. I am grateful to those members for meeting me to have those discussions, and I am delighted that we could reach a consensus on many of the important areas that were raised during stage 2. Together, through that collaboration, we have agreed a number of helpful clarifications and additions to the bill—for example, with Ariane Burgess, to include examples of eligibility for area-based schemes and clarifications to the rural support plan, including a list of outcomes additions that further show the breadth of future co-development. Through the Government’s discussions with Labour, Richard Leonard lodged an amendment on information about recipients of support—a transparency that, I am sure, will be welcomed by all. I also welcome the collaborative work with Rhoda Grant on amendments that will help to ensure that, through regulations, we indeed have the right tree in the right place.

I have worked with Beatrice Wishart to agree an amendment on a requirement for consultation before making regulations on continuing professional development. I am also pleased that, with Edward Mountain, we reached an agreement on amendments on the right of appeal, and that discussions with Rachael Hamilton led to an amendment on, among other areas, the preparation of a statement on food security in Scotland. Due to discussions with back benchers of my own party, we now have further amendments on CPD, including a comprehensive amendment on monitoring and evaluation.

All of that has served to make the legislation stronger and fit for the future.

The Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill provides Scotland with a flexible future framework that will support farmers and crofters to adapt to new opportunities and new challenges. I am absolutely clear in our commitment to support farmers and crofters to produce more of our food more sustainably, while continuing to acknowledge the need for change, and to ensure that agriculture continues to play its part in cutting emissions, mitigating climate change and restoring and enhancing nature and biodiversity, while continuing to produce food.

I am really fortunate in this job in that I get to travel the country, meeting farmers and crofters across Scotland who are already undertaking this work and some really important activities. They are all trying to produce food to feed our nation while reducing their impact on the climate and enhancing biodiversity.

As we transition to the future—

You must conclude, cabinet secretary.

—I reiterate my commitments that we will communicate clearly and that we will ensure that there is a just transition and no cliff edges in support. We will continue to develop the details of future policy with those most affected by it—with our farmers and crofters.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill be passed.

19:30  

I am pleased to be able to open the debate on the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill at stage 3 on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.

I start by thanking the bill team and the committee clerks, who have supported us throughout the bill’s passage, and the relevant stakeholder groups who have provided insights and briefings. I will not list them all but I send them my thanks.

I also thank the cabinet secretary for meeting me and colleagues ahead of stages 2 and 3 to discuss amendments to the bill. Our views on the passage of the bill will be very different. I believe that the bill presented an opportunity for the Scottish Government to deliver a brand new shiny support scheme that was centred around Scottish farmers and food producers. It was an opportunity to build a scheme that was co-designed with farmers and rural communities, could provide much-needed clarity and detail on future support schemes and could transform the future of Scotland’s food production by putting food security at its heart.

However, the SNP has failed to take full advantage of the opportunity to create a bespoke plan that is specific to Scotland’s farmers and food producers. Farmers, crofters and rural communities have waited a very long time—six years, in fact—to see the bill itself and the important detail that will support it. I take myself back to the angry scenes outside Holyrood when farmers protested about the lack of detail from the Government on their future. We are now nearly nine months on from the introduction of the bill, and we still do not have meaningful clarity on how farmers and food producers will be supported.

As the cabinet secretary has stated repeatedly in the chamber and in committee, the rural support plan will contain the key details of the support schemes. In the stage 3 proceedings earlier this afternoon, the cabinet secretary stated, regarding the publication of the rural support plan:

“That is as much information as we can provide at this stage”.

However, last week, in a written answer to me, the cabinet secretary confirmed that the rural support plan will be published before Parliament breaks for recess next Thursday.

I wonder what significant developments or events are expected between now and next Thursday that may cause a delay in the publication of the rural support plan. If the plan had been shared ahead of today’s debate, we could have spent valuable time discussing and scrutinising the detail and plans that will affect farmers the most. However, we spent time debating ridiculous ideological amendments from the Green Party about farm connections and its obsession with grouse shooting. Today is just another day on which the SNP has failed to give farmers and food producers the detail that they need. Sadly, today is another day that they remain uncertain about their future, uncertain about what investments they can afford to make and uncertain about how they can continue to put food on plates up and down Scotland.

Perhaps the Royal Highland Show will be a revelation and there will be a big announcement on detail on Thursday when the First Minister goes to the Quality Meat Scotland breakfast, but we will have to wait and see.

With regard to the measures in the bill, the Law Society notes that, without certainty and clarity,

“it is difficult to fully understand and assess their likely impacts, particularly on those operating in the sector”—

as I have said—further highlighting

“the need for flexibility to be appropriately balanced against ensuring there is clarity in the law”.

As we stand here today, with the bill as amended, the Government has failed to get the balance right. The Scottish Conservatives lodged several sensible amendments at stages 2 and 3 to improve the bill and to ensure that it can be delivered with Scottish farmers and food producers at its heart. Although I am pleased and very grateful that the Scottish Government supported a small number of our amendments and that those were successful, more could have been done to improve the bill. The Scottish Conservatives will continue to scrutinise how the Scottish Government delivers for farmers.

The Scottish Conservatives will be delighted to support the bill at stage 3, because it is a mechanism to allow farmers to be supported. We will continue to support Scottish agriculture but, at the same time, we will ensure that the SNP is held to account and that it listens to rural Scotland. We will continue to call for the immediate publication of a rural support plan that is meaningfully co-designed with key stakeholders—we have been promised that. We will continue to call for a commitment to multi-annual ring-fenced funding to provide long-term security and certainty to farmers and food producers. We will continue to call for an understanding of when the Scottish Government will return the rest of the £46 million to the rural affairs portfolio. We will continue to scrutinise the SNP to ensure that the secondary legislation delivers for rural and farming communities.

Farming communities are so important to Scotland’s rural and local economies, and we will always support them.

19:36  

I, too, thank all those who helped with the bill: those who gave written and in-person evidence, the Parliament’s legislation team, the clerks to the committee and other parliamentary staff, all of whom helped during the process. I also thank the parliamentary staff who are working late tonight to allow us to conclude our deliberations, because they cannot get home until we go home.

The bill is essential to allow our primary food producers to access Government support. Our food system does not work well. Primary producers are too far from their end customers and often do not receive a fair return for their work. The bill has recognised fair work practices and, I hope, allows scope for local production and procurement. However, that is all dependent on the rural support plan, which is a critical component of the bill. The bill simply allows for a plan to be produced and funded. How our farmers and crofters produce food, reach net zero and feed our nation is totally dependent on the rural support plan, and we have not seen even the vaguest draft.

We urged the cabinet secretary to produce a draft before stage 3 to allow the committee to gauge whether the bill provided the correct foundations for the plan. We are still waiting, and I wonder whether we will again be left waiting until the last possible moment to see it.

Does the member agree that it is completely disrespectful to the Parliament, and to the committee that Rhoda Grant and I serve on, that, despite the time that the bill has been in the creation, the rural support plan, which is a key feature of it, will be published after the stage 3 proceedings have finished?

Yes, I agree. I fear that the Government hates scrutiny and believes that it knows best. The simple fact is that scrutiny provides better legislation and governance. If the Government can answer the concerns and reassure people, and if it can reassess its plans in the face of new information, we all win. Not only do we all win but, much more importantly, we provide good governance to the people whom we serve. We should all hold that ambition.

Much depends on the legislation being successful. We need food security. The war in Ukraine has shown us that we are globally interdependent and that we need to be more self-sufficient. That global interdependence also challenges our net zero goal. Food miles add to our carbon footprint, and we have no way of gauging whether the food that we import is net zero. We know, for example, that meat that is produced elsewhere is intensively farmed and produces greenhouse gases, with the result that protein from meat is often frowned upon. However, we can produce meat from grass-fed cattle that locks in carbon and is net zero.

Why do we import meat that undermines our ability to produce something much more nutritious, which is much better for the planet? It makes no sense. We also know that smaller producers underpin our rural communities, which addresses depopulation, yet we reward larger producers, many of whom would be profitable without support, to a much greater extent. It makes no sense.

On the one hand, we look to land reform to change the land ownership pattern in Scotland, but on the other, we actively encourage large land holdings by paying them a greater amount per hectare than we pay to those who provide the greatest community benefit. Again, that is senseless. We need the reality to meet the rhetoric.

I urge the cabinet secretary to share a draft of the rural support plan immediately. She also needs to share drafts of the many pieces of guidance and secondary legislation that flow from the bill as soon as possible. She must allow it to be scrutinised, and she must listen to what those who depend on it say.

There can be no cliff edge. This must be the start of a process that lays the foundation for agricultural support in the future, and that vision must be clearly presented. That way, we underpin our agriculture sector by supporting it to provide food security while meeting our net zero and societal goals.

19:41  

I thank everyone who has been working so hard to bring the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill to fruition to enable the next steps in the agricultural reform route map to sustainable and regenerative agriculture.

I thank the members from other parties with whom I had constructive conversations, and the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee and its clerks, and I offer a big thank you to the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government bill team for the many discussions about amendments and the best ways of achieving our shared aims. A huge thank you also goes to the stakeholders who have been working for years to influence the bill, including organisations and individuals across the spectrum of farming, forestry, land management, conservation, nature restoration and workers’ rights, and to the Scottish Parliament’s legislation team, which helped to transform ideas into amendments.

I give a special mention to the farmers and crofters whom I spoke to in Parliament, during committee visits and in my region, and to the organisations that I worked closely with and that inspired or helped me to draft my amendments—the Landworkers Alliance, Nourish Scotland, Jo Hunt at Knockfarrel croft, the Scottish Crofting Federation, Scottish Environment LINK and its many members, including, notably, the RSPB and Trees for Life, the Association of Deer Management Groups, the Worker Support Centre Scotland and the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

Those organisations have put so much effort in because they know how crucial the bill is. It creates the framework that will shape the on-the-ground efforts to minimise climate change and restore nature, and it will support more people to live in thriving rural communities, working in good green jobs, including, first and foremost, food production.

Each party has made important contributions to the bill, such as Elena Whitham’s addition of an animal welfare objective, Brian Whittle’s inclusion of a connection to the good food nation efforts and Colin Smyth’s influence on the Scottish Government, which agreed to consult NatureScot and other bodies when designing rural payment schemes.

After many in-depth conversations, I was delighted to secure Government support for several Scottish Green amendments, which will bring us closer to achieving the bill’s objective. The bill now includes suggested outcomes that the rural support plan should aim to achieve. Those include reduced emissions, reduced pesticides, increased organic farming and improved water quality. That complements the changes that were secured at stage 2, which means that support can be provided for protecting and improving biological soil health, which is essential for continuing to produce food and maintaining functioning living ecosystems.

I have been championing small producers, including market gardeners, whose small plots mean that they have not been eligible for support, despite the huge contributions that they make to local food supply, rural jobs, carbon sequestration and nature. My amendments that will provide new routes to support could be a game changer for those key workers and attract new entrants to local food production. I will follow progress closely and, if necessary, will periodically remind the Scottish Government to use those new powers.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will keep going.

Many stakeholders felt that the bill did not give enough consideration to forestry, so I was glad to secure a few improvements in that space. The bill now specifies that ministers must consider their duty to promote sustainable forestry management, and it will also enable support to be provided for agroforestry that brings benefits to farms and farm animals, and for nature-based businesses and nature restoration. A tall barrier to nature restoration is unsustainably high deer numbers, so I am pleased to have added to the bill support for deer management—which is very challenging but vital work—and for infrastructure to ensure that the venison will make it on to local plates and not go to waste.

All together, I am proud of the improvements that the Scottish Greens and other parties have made to the bill, and I urge members to vote it into law.

19:45  

I am pleased to speak for the Scottish Liberal Democrats at stage 3 of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, which is a significant piece of legislation that is needed to support those who produce food in Scotland. A lot of work has gone into getting us to the final stage of the bill and, as others have done, I extend my thanks to the bill team, the convener and members of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, and the team at the Scottish Parliament information centre for their support throughout the committee scrutiny. My thanks also go to all the organisations that provided briefings and everyone who gave evidence to the committee, and I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands for her constructive engagement during our consideration of the bill.

We have known since the United Kingdom left the European Union that Scotland would need a new support system for agriculture to replace the common agricultural policy, and I am disappointed that it has taken so many years to get to this point. The uncertainty has caused anxiety for farmers, crofters, land managers and people across the supply chain and associated professions, from auctioneers to vets. Recent years have been challenging for the sector. Brexit has had impacts on growers’ ability to find agricultural workers, while global political instability and rising costs have also created considerable challenges.

By their very nature, farming and crofting require long-term planning and investment, which is why farmers and crofters need certainty for years ahead. Many have just been treading water and have been unable to commit to long-term plans as they have waited to see the terms of the new agriculture bill and rural support plan. The wait has also impacted new entrants to farming and, as I highlighted at stage 1, it has negatively impacted on the mental health of some in the sector.

Scotland can rightly be proud of its food and drink sector. Consumer confidence in what we grow is vital and, following our exit from the EU, it is important that Scotland maintains high animal welfare standards.

There has been much discussion about the inclusion of a multi-annual financial framework in the rural support plan. The cabinet secretary argued that it is not possible to commit to including such a framework, as the Scottish Government does not have certainty over future budgets. However, I am disappointed that, this afternoon, my amendment that sought an indicative financial framework over multiple years was not supported by the Government.

As part of our scrutiny process, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee undertook farm visits, which were extremely useful, as they enabled us to gain a better understanding of the variety of needs across the sector. Our fact-finding visits, including to McGregor Farms in Coldstream and the Scotland’s Rural College hill and mountain research centre at Crianlarich, were particularly helpful for learning about innovation in farming practices and the importance of sharing knowledge via peer-to-peer learning.

Farmers and crofters live by the seasons and they are very aware of the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss. Many already innovate and make changes to increase resilience in the face of challenges such as increasing severe weather events, and that good practice should be fostered, nurtured and encouraged.

The sector in Scotland is diverse, ranging from small-scale producers to large farms. Across that cross-section of producer types, support is required from the Scottish Government to enable them to produce food for the nation. Co-design of support schemes is vital to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. Support schemes must recognise the diversity of the agriculture sector and must work for all farms and crofts. New entrants need to be supported and encouraged for the future success of the sector.

Farming and crofting across Scotland and the wider supply chain contribute enormously to our rural economy and rural communities. Scotland can be proud of its agriculture sector and all that it produces.

We move to the open debate.

19:49  

The importance of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill cannot be overstated, and my thanks, too, go to everyone who has got us to this stage. The bill will provide the much-needed framework—the scaffolding, in fact—for the measures that the Scottish ministers will use to develop the critical support that farming and rural communities need in order to adapt to new opportunities and challenges and to prosper in an ever-changing world.

The bill will be the platform for measures that are focused on the Scottish Government’s key outcomes of high-quality food production, climate mitigation and adaptation, nature restoration and wider rural development. We need to ensure our food security; protect our environment and enhance biodiversity; and support and empower our rural communities to thrive.

The vision for agriculture outlines the goal of transforming how the Government will

“support farming and food production in Scotland to become a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture.”

It puts farmers, crofters and land managers at its core, and values their efforts to help feed the nation and steward our countryside. The Scottish Government understands that the sector needs flexibility, now and into the future, to best respond to the pressures and challenges that we will continue to face. NFU Scotland has told us that being nimble and flexible is key.

As we move forward, the bill will allow for the provision of adaptive support to farmers, crofters and land managers in the near-term, medium-term and long-term future. As the Scottish Government continues to co-develop the measures for the four-tier support framework, it remains committed to supporting active farming and food production with direct payments now, and it will take a phased approach to integrating new conditionality. There must be no cliff edges in either support or conditionality.

It is important to reflect on the fact that the bill was informed by the insights of five farmer-led groups that reported to us. Those invaluable groups made contributions on the suckler beef, dairy, pig, arable and hill, upland and crofting sectors and demonstrated a shared commitment to, and appetite for, change across the industry.

During consideration of the bill, many expressed the view that there needed to be much more detail in the text of the bill. Although I understand why some felt that way, it is not practical to lay out detailed schemes in primary legislation, as that would remove the opportunity to create flexibility to respond to unforeseen future issues. That is why the framework bill is the right way forward. Secondary legislation will lay out detailed schemes that will sit within the framework of primary legislation but will be best able to respond to change. It is also important that we ensure that there is space for the relevant committee to scrutinise future iterations in a way that is effective for all. I agree that it is imperative that we see the rural support plan as soon as possible.

One of the first sessions that I attended as a new member of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee was when we hosted 37 land managers and community representatives from across Scotland to help to inform our consideration of the bill. I found the session to be highly informative, and I came away contemplating how we create space for, and provide support to, our smaller producers, and how we ensure that the voices of rural communities are amplified and those communities are supported to thrive. I would be keen to hear from the cabinet secretary on both those issues when she sums up.

Finally, it is important that we reflect on the reason that the bill was needed in the first place, which is Brexit—a change that this country did not vote for, and which has been quite disastrous for our rural communities. While Scotland was in the European Union, we enjoyed the benefit of a seven-year multi-annual framework that reflected the uniqueness of our agricultural landscape, with Scotland receiving nearly £1 billion in funding annually to support farming, food production, woodland creation, environmental protection and wider rural priorities. Since Brexit, Scotland’s funding has been allocated annually, with no certainty beyond next year, and scant dialogue from UK ministers, despite the best efforts of our cabinet secretary. Perhaps an incoming Government can have better dialogue with us.

In addition, we must recognise the threats that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 places on our agriculture sector, and the difficulties that it creates with regard to our ability to tailor agricultural payments to the specific needs of Scottish farmers, crofters and land managers in the future. I do not think that we can underestimate that.

This framework bill is needed, and I urge the Parliament to support it today.

19:53  

The Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill has been a long time coming, particularly given that the UK vote was almost exactly eight years ago and it is more than three years since the UK Government passed the Internal Market Act 2020, in November of that year.

We are told that the new framework bill will be used by the Scottish Government to deliver its vision for agriculture, but I am not alone—far from it—when I say that there has been insufficient progress in providing detail to farmers and growers across Scotland of what that vision will look like in practice.

The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee handled stages 1 and 2, and I thank the committee clerks and all the witnesses who took part. We undertook a significant piece of pre-legislative scrutiny work, holding evidence sessions and gaining a broad understanding of Scottish agriculture and future challenge and opportunities. Throughout witness sessions and visits, we heard concerns from across the sector about the timing of the bill and, more importantly, about the lack of information on the direction of future agricultural support.

Sadly, the passing of the bill will not relieve any fears around that challenge. Stakeholders also demanded that any future agriculture and rural support must be developed in full consultation with them. Although the cabinet secretary has reiterated the Government’s intention to co-design the agricultural support system with stakeholders, the bill has fallen short of providing adequate rules for statutory consultation. Index-linking budgets would be a true measure of co-design at grassroots level, but what we have from this SNP Government is the ill-thought-out calving index condition, which is just one example of co-design not working.

New qualifying conditions will be introduced to the Scottish suckler beef support scheme, which is a hugely important payment system for some people, as it accounts for 33 per cent of their income, but farmers and representative groups are asking for the scheme to be paused. The Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland has described the new conditionality measures as “counterintuitive”, and the National Beef Association has said that introducing the conditions

“halfway through the qualifying period is just foolish.”

I hope that that is not an example of the co-design that the cabinet secretary has been portraying as the gold standard in policy making.

A framework bill can deliver policy that is flexible and adaptable. Nevertheless, the Law Society of Scotland has highlighted

“the need for flexibility to be appropriately balanced against ensuring there is clarity in the law, appropriate levels of parliamentary scrutiny underpinning legislative and policy developments, and meaningful stakeholder consultation.”

Without greater detail as to how the subsequent proposals will operate in practice, it is difficult to fully understand and assess their likely impacts, particularly on people operating in the sector. As a former NFUS president said to me, the Scottish Government’s bill says, in effect, “Give us the power to do whatever we want, when we want, with whatever budget we want, on policy priorities as yet undecided or at least unpublished.”

The publication of the draft rural support plan could have been the saving grace in addressing some of the uncertainty, but, despite calls for it to be published before stage 3 to allow discussion and initial scrutiny, those calls have been ignored by the Government. All that we have had are amendments that provide more information and the commitment to effective consultation with those who will be affected by plans during the preparation, or any subsequent reviews, of plans. Although that is welcome, it falls well short of what the industry and stakeholders were looking for.

The bill could have been so much more. It was the opportunity for Scotland to move away from the CAP and develop a plan and strategy through a bespoke piece of legislation that was capable of delivering a future farming industry, addressing Scotland’s unique challenges and opportunities and ensuring that the industry was sustainable, profitable and capable of delivering the food security, climate change, biodiversity and rural repopulation outcomes that we all want to see.

I am disappointed by the lack of ambition that has been shown by this Government and some of our farming representative organisations, whose closeness to the Government and unquestioning acceptance of the bill are regrettable. I sincerely hope that the lack of vision does not derail what our hugely innovative farmers have already achieved in the past few years without what is often misguided interference from the Government.

Will Finlay Carson give way?

Mr Carson has concluded. I call Richard Leonard, who is the final speaker in the open debate.

19:58  

I draw members’ attention to my voluntary entry in the register of members’ interests.

As I set out in the stage 1 debate, the stated intentions of the bill are ones that we broadly welcome, but the test will be whether those intentions are fulfilled. That is why I, for one, welcome the Government’s willingness to improve the transparency, monitoring and evaluation of the distribution of farm payments and other financial instruments.

Pete Ritchie of Nourish Scotland told me just this week that the very latest figures show that the top 10 per cent of recipients of basic payments swallow up 43.7 per cent of the total budget—that is over a quarter of a billion pounds going to the top 10 per cent—and we have the largest concentration of land ownership in the whole of western Europe. So, if, in a year or two’s time, the biggest and wealthiest landowners are still the biggest recipients of farm support payments, in my view we will have failed.

We also need to turn back the tide of corporate greenwashing, to turn back the tide of corporate and capital wealth tax avoidance, and to turn back the tide of city spivs and speculators dominating the reforestation of Scotland. There is no meaningful regulation of the market. The cabinet secretary tells us that

“Scottish Forestry does not restrict funding to companies based on their wider business interests.”

Well, it should. This is public money. There is a racket going on here, and it is a racket that we can stop.

We need to end a system in which too much public money is going into the private pockets of Scotland’s already wealthy corporations and estate owners. What a contrast all of that is to the plight of the people who work on our farms—those 67,000 farm labourers in Scotland and those 6,000 to 7,000 migrant seasonal workers, who are, in my view, the most exploited workers in Scotland. They are treated as the lowest of the low.

The landowners tell us that fair work principles should not apply to those seasonal workers, because they are covered by the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board, but their hourly rate is just £11.44. That is well below the living wage. Add to that the fact that they have a deduction from that, in many cases, for accommodation that is often below a tolerable standard and that, we have learned through the passage of the bill, is not inspected at all.

There is a huge inequality and a great injustice here, which should challenge not just our sense of fairness but our sense of morality. I am disappointed by the Government’s unimaginative, uninspired inaction on this in Parliament today. Let me finish with the words of John Steinbeck, who warned in “The Grapes of Wrath” that

“the line between hunger and anger is a thin line.”

He wrote that

“in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.”

The current unequal, unjust rigged order is not working. It is driving a movement for change—for radical change—that is pro-people, pro-worker, pro-environment and pro-nature, and that is what we must deliver. That is our democratic, social and moral duty—to act to deliver that real and radical change.

We move to winding-up speeches.

20:02  

I am honoured to have been part of the process of shaping the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill. I thank the cabinet secretary and my MSP colleagues for their contributions to the debate. I once again thank the numerous farmers, crofters and other stakeholders who worked hard to make the bill as strong as possible, so that it can help to shape agriculture and rural land use and support rural communities.

A key theme that has emerged through working on the bill is justice. Climate justice requires significant changes in agriculture and land management, which in turn require changes to rural support and incentives.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I am not going to take any interventions.

Social justice indicates that the agriculture budget should be redistributed to support more people, particularly those who run small-scale farms and crofts. Social justice also demands the right to food, which has implications for farming, food processing, policy and payments. Ecological justice and animal rights point us to using public funds for public good, not for subsidising blood sports on grouse moors.

To advance each of those forms of justice, a just transition is needed to support people to change practices where necessary, start new activities where desired and make a good living from work that benefits people and the planet in the community where they want to live. That is an extremely tall order, and it will not be achieved by the bill alone, but the bill is a key piece of the puzzle, which is why it is so important.

In my opening contribution, I spoke about the improvements that various members made to the bill, and there is much to be proud of, but there are many areas where more progress must be made. Beyond the passage of the bill, it is imperative that we continue to push for improvements that will advance those aspects of justice through rural land management and how it is supported.

I lodged amendments that aimed to help new and young farmers to buy land in the face of sky-high land prices, to give local communities a voice in relation to large-scale non-native tree planting, to redistribute a portion of farm support so that there is more for small farms and crofts and for climate and nature, to curb public subsidies for driven grouse moors, to ensure that rural payments help to promote land reform and land access principles, and to encourage employers of seasonal farm workers to provide fair work in a safe environment. The cabinet secretary has assured me that work is under way to advance many of those aims, which did not require inclusion in this piece of primary legislation. I appreciate the intentions of the Scottish Government. The Scottish Greens will follow those aspects closely, and I look forward to seeing them develop.

The Scottish Greens are clear, as are many stakeholders, that significant changes are needed in agriculture and land use in order to address the climate and nature crises. That will happen in a socially just way only if there are significant changes to the support and incentives that are provided through the rural budget.

The Scottish Government has said repeatedly that it will transform the way in which farming and food production are supported. We have not yet seen evidence of that transformation, but we are confident that the bill creates the powers and establishes the framework that will enable the necessary change, which we trust will become clear as work continues along the agricultural reform route map. That will be absolutely crucial to supporting farmers, crofters, growers, foresters and other members of rural communities to adapt and thrive through regenerative land management, food production and related businesses. The bill is a significant milestone on that track. The Greens strongly support it and we urge other members to do the same.

20:06  

It is eight years since the vote to leave the EU, and it is four years since the Parliament passed the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Act 2020. Even after this long-overdue bill is passed today, too much of the future of farming will still be on hold: we are “treading water”, as Beatrice Wishart said.

There is no draft rural support plan, there are still no measurable targets and there is still no better distribution of support. I know that we cannot dot every single i and cross every single t of a rural support scheme in primary legislation. We need flexibility to ensure that some changes can be made when needed without revisiting the primary legislation. However, the bill should have set out a clearer strategic direction and a real purpose, and it should have had more ambition for future support.

The bill should have better recognised the facts: that our current agricultural support system is not working; that too many farmers and crofters cannot make ends meet; that conflict and war are, more than ever, putting our food security at risk; that despite more than 80 per cent of Scotland’s land being used for agriculture, we have rising food poverty; that past practice has too often damaged biodiversity; and that innovative, regenerative and nature-friendly practices are still undersupported.

We cannot continue with business as usual. Properly supporting our farmers and crofters is key to producing the food that we eat, but changing how we provide that support is key to restoring nature, to tackling climate change and to supporting sustainable rural communities.

There have been some welcome changes to the bill since it was published. During stage 1, I and charities including OneKind highlighted the failure of the bill to include a commitment in its objectives to improving animal welfare. I am pleased that that was amended at stage 2. High-quality food production is delivered through high animal welfare standards. It is right that that is reflected in the objectives of the bill, and it should be reflected in the support that we provide to farmers and crofters.

At stage 2, I lodged amendments on proper engagement in development of the rural support plan, so I am pleased that the cabinet secretary listened to the arguments and lodged amendments on that at stage 3.

The bill could and should have been better, however, and I have to say that part of the responsibility for the fact that it is not better rests with the Scottish Greens. At stage 2, amendment after amendment that I moved, supported by Scotland’s environmental groups, was voted down, often by just one vote. That one vote was the Scottish Greens voting against improvements to our environment.

We now turn our attention to implementation of the bill. Rhoda Grant was right to emphasise the importance of the proposed rural support plan, which is, arguably, even more important than the bill itself. Several members highlighted the failure of the Government to bring forward a meaningful draft plan by stage 3. As Rhoda Grant said, the Government hates scrutiny: ministers believe that they know best.

Rhoda Grant and Richard Leonard were also right to highlight the failure to set out in the bill a clear commitment to a more distributive approach to farm payments. As Rhoda Grant said:

“We also know that smaller producers underpin our rural communities, which addresses depopulation, yet we reward larger producers, many of whom would be profitable without support, to a much greater extent.”

I was struck by the figures that Richard Leonard highlighted from Nourish Scotland that show that the top 10 per cent of recipients of basic payments swallowed up 43.7 per cent of the total budget—more than a quarter of a billion pounds. Too much support goes to too few and too many are excluded from that support. The bill was a missed opportunity to address that.

The bill will be passed today. However, much work still needs to be done to ensure that food production is at the heart of our rural support scheme and that that is done in a fair and sustainable way. If that does not happen, the Government will continue to fail to deliver for Scotland’s farmers and crofters and it will continue to fail to deliver for Scotland’s environment.

20:10  

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a partner in a farming business and I am in receipt of farming payments. I am a member of NFU Scotland, Scottish Land & Estates and the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland—I am looking forward to the show this week. I am a substitute member of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee and was involved only slightly in the scrutiny of the bill, and I am a member of the Finance and Public Administration Committee.

We should have reached this point some time ago and the matter should have been sorted out a long time ago. As others have mentioned, the United Kingdom Government’s Agriculture Bill was passed more than three and a half years ago. Throughout the legislative process, stakeholders have warned about delays with progressing the bill and of the impact of those delays.

I feel a sense of déjà vu while speaking today, because I spoke in the stage 1 debate and although the political side of Scotland has changed—the “Faustian pact”, as Fergus Ewing called it, of the Bute house agreement is over—many of the concerns that we had then remain today.

MSPs, committees and stakeholders have raised concerns about this framework bill because of its serious lack of detail. Obviously, more details will be filled in through secondary legislation. Of course, we still have no rural support plan, which Professor Thomson of Scotland’s Rural College said

“needs to be front and centre”,

while Douglas Bell of the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association said:

“The earlier that can come, the better. There is a real frustration among agricultural stakeholders just now about working in a vacuum.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 31 January 2024; c 11, 12-13.

A Government that has produced reams and reams of independence papers that no one reads has not been able to produce a rural support plan that farmers need. Despite that, ministers have ignored calls for it to be published. Has the cabinet secretary signed off the rural support plan? I am happy to take an intervention from the cabinet secretary if she would like to clarify whether she has signed off the rural support plan.

I do not make points or interventions at the beck and call of members.

Well, that is a shame, because I think that the plan is vital. As my colleague Fin Carson said during the debate, it will be extraordinarily disrespectful if the rural support plan that we have been denied being able to see and scrutinise is, perhaps for political reasons, published in the next few days.

That lack of detail and uncertainty for farmers has impacted on investment and long-term decision making not just on them but on the supply chain. That is why I welcomed and was happy to support Beatrice Wishart’s amendment calling for indicative multiyear funding. I am disappointed, if not surprised, that the SNP did not support that.

I turn to other amendments. The Scottish Conservatives promised to lodge amendments to improve the bill. I congratulate my colleagues Tim Eagle, Edward Mountain and Brian Whittle on their successful amendments. I also thank Rachael Hamilton and Finlay Carson, who have engaged very positively throughout the bill process. Rachael Hamilton’s amendments tried to ensure better scrutiny by Parliament and its committees of the rural support plan, and recognised the need to preserve the traditions of farmers and crofters. That was never evident in some of the amendments that were lodged by Ariane Burgess.

The Scottish Conservatives support the bill because of the need for more certainty for farmers. Farmers are being asked to trust the SNP—to trust a Government that has cut rural budgets, that has syphoned off peer-review funding, that has let down rural Scotland time and again and that has often thought that it knows best, rather than listening to those who farm and manage Scotland’s land. However, many people in our rural communities and in the agricultural sector do not trust the SNP.

When the rural support plan is delivered and secondary legislation is introduced, the Scottish Conservatives will do all that we can to ensure that it will meet the needs of our farming sector and our rural communities.

20:15  

I have to start by saying to Jamie Halcro Johnston that people have even less faith in his disastrous party, and we will soon see evidence of that in the upcoming election.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

No, thank you.

I wanted to start in a positive way, given the debate that we have had and the amendments that we have considered. I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to the debate and for all their contributions and discussions on amendments. I admit that we have had a few tetchy points, but I am glad that we have, largely, been able to discuss the bill in quite a constructive way.

There were, of course, various amendments that we were not able to accept and various areas that we were not able to agree on, but there were many areas of consensus. I know that all of us across the chamber share the vision of a thriving agriculture sector, with our farmers and crofters continuing to produce food in a way that works for the climate and for nature and playing their critical role in thriving rural and island communities. I believe that the bill that we are due to pass sets a firm foundation that will enable us to deliver that.

I turn to some of the points that have been made in the debate. There is so much to cover, so I will try to get through as much as I can. I will pick up on some of the points that Richard Leonard made. First, I thank him for raising the cultural tone of the debate through his literary references, but he also raised hugely important points. I know that he might not be content with my response to him today but, as I outlined, the issues that he raised are hugely complex and do not rest solely in my portfolio, so it is not just up to me or within my powers to fix them—they cut across Government portfolios. I hope that he will take up my offer of a meeting with me and the Minister for Housing so that we can at least try to make some progress on the important issues that he has raised.

I know that the rural support plan is of great interest to members, many of whom have spoken about it tonight. At stage 2, I spoke about the content, scrutiny and role of the rural support plan. As I highlighted to the committee, I recognise that there is a lot of interest in the area, which was reflected in the many stage 2 amendments relating to how the bill’s provisions could be strengthened. I believe that it was crucial that we considered those amendments not in isolation but as a coherent whole to ensure that the plan could be drafted and delivered and could function. I reiterate that I believe that the amendments were lodged in good faith to make the bill more effective.

Can you confirm whether you have signed off the draft rural support plan?

Speak through the chair.

The convener of the committee might be surprised to know that the committee was sent a copy of the draft rural support plan on 7 June, which has been published on the committee’s web page. I take serious issue with the completely unfounded comments and accusations that have been thrown at me tonight. If the member cared to do a quick Google search, he would find it for himself.

As I said, I believe that it was crucial that we considered the amendments not in isolation but as a coherent whole. Ultimately, that will ensure that the plan is as strong as possible and is able to function now, during the period of transition, and well into the future. We will co-develop the policies and schemes with farmers, crofters and wider stakeholders. That is why I committed to engaging collaboratively with members of all parties prior to stage 3 and to lodging amendments that would reflect that. Generally, I am pleased that, together, we have been able to deliver on that commitment. We have passed a series of robust amendments covering the rural support plan and our approach to monitoring and evaluation.

Many other issues were raised when amendments were discussed earlier. Certain things were asked for but, although I agreed with the basis of the amendments, I was unable to support them. One such issue was, undoubtedly, the asks from members across the chamber for the Government to commit to multiyear financial frameworks.

Funding and the lack of certainty about future budgets have been raised many times. As members are well aware, Brexit means that we no longer have any assurance on long-term funding. We have no certainty that we will have any funding even beyond next year. That is why I welcomed the committee’s backing for the Scottish Government’s long-standing call for certainty from the UK Government on future funding. Rural Scotland cannot suffer a loss of financial support as a result of Brexit and the decisions that have been made by a disastrous UK Government.

The Scottish Government expects the UK Government to meet its public commitment and engage in collective and meaningful discussion about the future allocation of rural support. I have to raise the complete disrespect that has been shown to not only the Scottish Government but devolved Administrations across the UK. They have been completely ignored by the latest Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. There has been not one response to a piece of correspondence, and he has refused to turn up to meetings in which he would have to engage with the relevant members. That situation cannot continue. I am sure that voters will have their say when it comes to 4 July.

The Scottish Government has, of course, been clear and consistent in our position that we expect full replacement of EU funds to ensure that there is no detriment to Scotland’s finances, and we expect the UK Government to fully respect the devolution settlement in any future arrangement. Despite the uncertainty, I have been clear to the sector and in Parliament that there will be no cliff edges in support, as the Scottish Government has committed to maintaining direct payments beyond 2026 and supporting our nation’s producers through a just transition. Over the past few years, I have listened to all the feedback that we have had from members of all committees, stakeholders and—this is important—our farmers and crofters. They are the people who work the land, produce our food and work for the climate and nature. It is vital that we continue that work with them as we develop our future policy, and that is exactly what I intend to do.

Passing the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill in Parliament will be a significant milestone in reforming our agricultural and wider rural support systems, and it takes us another step further on that journey. I am therefore happy to commend the bill to Parliament.

That concludes the debate on the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill at stage 3.