Official Report 1162KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-22514, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill.
I call the cabinet secretary to signify Crown consent to the bill and to open the debate.
17:47
I am delighted to present the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill to Parliament for its stage 3 debate. First, I will deal with an important formality.
As members know, it is a requirement of standing orders that I signify Crown consent to the bill, when that is needed. Therefore, for the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, in so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill.
I thank farmers and crofters for the work that they do for Scotland, especially during this Covid pandemic, when they are working so hard to ensure that there is food on the table. I want to make it clear that this Government is committed to continuing to support them in the production of high-quality food, as custodians of the countryside and as pillars of our rural and island communities. That is why it has been my determination to ensure that support payments are received by farmers and crofters as quickly as possible, so I confirm today that the first of our loan-payment runs this year has been completed. It will see 11,885 farmers receive £296 million on Tuesday 1 September.
Scotland was the first United Kingdom paying agency to make advance payments again this year, and those payments will reach the bank accounts of farmers in Scotland a full three months ahead of payments to farmers in England. That is very important, because it means that at a time of real financial pressure in the rural community, that money will be used and circulated to make payments to other leading businesses in rural Scotland.
My aim for the bill is set out in the “Stability and Simplicity: proposals for a rural funding transition period” consultation. It is that it should provide farmers, crofters and land managers with as much certainty as possible in the current climate, while we develop our longer-term rural policy, which will apply beyond 2024. It is a technical bill about mechanisms and process rather than about policy change. Indeed, at stage 1, I said that it was
“a tool in the box—a spanner that enables us to do a specific task”—[Official Report, 5 May 2020; c 77.]
We need the powers in part 1 of the bill to allow the common agricultural policy schemes to be rolled over into retained European Union law to continue beyond the end of this year. I can confirm that we will use the powers in the bill to ensure that the CAP schemes will continue in 2021.
However, the measures in part 1 will also enable us to modify existing CAP schemes and rules by making appropriate simplifications and improvements to meet our needs and interests. There are some simplifications and improvements that I want to introduce next year; regulations will need to be laid and passed before the end of this year to achieve that.
I have listened and have given undertakings to consult and engage stakeholders and Parliament, as I would always do and have always done, and I have accepted the compromise of the each-way procedure applying to the use of the key powers in sections 2, 5 and 6. I am grateful to Mr Rennie for moving the appropriate amendment, to Mr Rumbles for moving the amendment on the sunset clause, and to both for the constructive roles that they have played throughout the passage of the bill.
The provisions in part 2 are also technical in nature; they update existing powers for the collection of agricultural and agrifood supply-chain data, making those more transparent and clearly linked to the principles of the general data protection regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018.
The bill was not intended to change or to formulate future substantive policy on farming and food production beyond 2024. That work is under way through a different process, as we have heard today, and I expect to receive, in the relatively near future, a report from the farming and food production future policy group.
However, we need this technical bill—
Members rose.
I will not take an intervention because I am approaching the close of my speech in order to try to curtail these proceedings, which have lasted quite some time, as we have been debating again matters that we debated extensively at stage 2.
We need this technical bill to be passed in order to allow CAP support to continue, and to provide farmers, crofters and land managers with as much certainty and stability as possible. The bill is fundamentally about them and for them.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I thank members, including those on the front benches, who have allowed their timings to be truncated, and those who have withdrawn from the debate to allow it to finish at a reasonable time.
17:54
Agriculture is the beating heart of our rural economy and we must never tire of promoting farming as a good, in and of itself. To break or weaken the connection between farming and our rural communities is to accept as inevitable rural depopulation and a managed decline in our countryside.
In that context, farm and rural support payments remain central to the future not only of Scottish agriculture but of rural Scotland. It is disappointing, as we enter the final stage of this legislative process, that the bill does little better than scrape over the low technical bar that was set for it.
It is doubly disappointing that that is combined with the fact that we have not yet seen the future policy group’s report, which I feel today joins a long list of missed opportunities for the Scottish National Party Government to chart a course for rural Scotland. Fortunately though, for the cabinet secretary, the clock is ticking and we agree that the bill must be supported—but not without some regret.
We think that the bill and the cabinet secretary fail to recognise that policy and process are often linked, which is why we have heard heated discussion about some amendments today. Rather than enabling ministers to take key decisions later, we could have been setting a clearer direction of travel and giving our farmers the stability and security that they are looking for.
At stage 3, Parliament and the many voices that it represents should have been considering matters through the prism of the report of the farming and food production future policy group. I will give up some of my speaking time if the cabinet secretary can give a firmer indication of when we expect to see that long-awaited report.
I do not think that there will be an intervention.
Without that report, we are left with little choice but to hand powers to ministers to kick the can a little further down the road. I hope that they have the energy and commitment to use those powers well. For example, as I said during the stage 3 debates on amendments, we share the fear of farmers that a future SNP Government might well siphon money out of the rural budget to support other projects.
Farmers deserve clarity on what any capping of individual payments would look like. Like NFU Scotland, we are absolutely crystal clear that any funds that are saved through capping must remain within the agriculture portfolio. I would welcome the cabinet secretary standing up and making that guarantee, rather than twisting my words, because that guarantee is sadly lacking.
To use the new powers to cut back on rural funding would represent an unforgivable betrayal of our rural communities. It is alarming that the SNP Government was not able to support Peter Chapman.
It is fast becoming clear that, rather than the manufactured grievance of a UK power grab, the biggest risk of Brexit is an SNP budget grab that would mean that Scottish farmers would be the losers.
The power to set a ceiling on individual payments dispels another myth that we hear too often in the chamber. That is just one example of the many serious decision-making powers that are returning to Scotland from Brussels. Indeed, the very need for the bill in the first place should confirm that we are getting a power surge.
There is nowhere left to hide. The big choices and the big decisions that lie ahead will be taken in Scotland. It does a disservice to the Scottish Government for it to suggest otherwise.
I call Colin Smyth to open for Labour.
17:57
There is probably more that could be said about what the bill fails to do and should have done than there is to say about what it does. Labour will support it, and I welcome the fact that it provides certainty on agricultural payments in the short term, but it is deeply disappointing that the SNP, with the support of the Liberal Democrats, has gone out of its way to ensure that the bill and the debate have focused on little more than that.
Every piece of legislation that goes through the Parliament is an opportunity to change things for the better, but the aim of the SNP and the Liberal Democrats appears to have been to try to avoid changing very much. That is particularly frustrating when the pressure on parliamentary time means that many important pieces of legislation, from the good food nation bill to the crofting bill, have been dropped.
I appreciate that the purpose of the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill is to provide continuity, but that should not have come at the expense of using the bill to give direction on the important but largely ignored powers that it provides—namely, powers to allow changes to be made to existing payment schemes.
The Scottish Government has committed to introducing an entirely new system of agricultural and rural support to replace the common agricultural policy by 2024. It remains to be seen whether that will happen. That will be an opportunity to make some much-needed improvements to how support is allocated and to what that support delivers, but it will be a significant change for the sector. It is critical that the four short years between now and then are used to lay the groundwork for that change and help the sector to prepare. However, within and outwith the bill, the Government has refused to set out its plans in any meaningful way for the transition period, let alone its vision for what will follow after that.
In the absence of any clarity or leadership from the Government, Opposition parties, with the support of a range of stakeholders, sought to provide in the bill some policy direction for the next four years, but that was ignored. We urgently need to see a different, more constructive and more ambitious approach from the Government if we are to build a consensus on the future of agricultural and rural support.
Time and again, we have come to the chamber and asked the Government to set out its plans, even in the most high-level terms, but it has failed to do so. The cabinet secretary has justified that by eventually establishing the farming and food production future policy group and insisting that any hint of leadership whatsoever from the Government would undermine the group’s work.
That is not to dismiss the group’s vital work—its expertise and insight are invaluable and should be at the heart of any policy making in the future. The problem is that, for the cabinet secretary, setting up such groups seems to be his only answer, and now the publication of the long-awaited report has been postponed. Meanwhile, across Scotland, farmers and crofters are waiting for information on what could be the most drastic overhaul of support for decades, unable to prepare or plan.
The sector faces ambitious targets in 2030 for both productivity and carbon reduction but it remains reliant on a support system that fails to properly support either. The message that I get from the sector over and over again is that it is ready and willing to change but is being held back by a support system that is not fit for purpose and is unsure whether, when or how that system will be changed.
Whatever the details of the new system, it is likely to be—and indeed should be—a significant change from the CAP. A new agricultural support system has the potential to deliver a huge range of benefits in addition to those already provided by the CAP. It can do more to support our environment, our economy and our rural communities, and it can distribute funding more equitably. There is broad consensus on the way forward and on the need for a support system that better incentivises sustainability and innovation, delivering clear public good for public money.
Although that will be to the sector’s advantage in the long run, it is bound to require significant adjustment, and the only way to minimise disruption is to allow preparations to begin as far in advance as possible, ensuring a smooth transition. Back in 2018, the Government made a commitment to introduce the new system in a short period of time. Two years later, we are no further forward on what the new system looks like but we are now just four years away from its implementation. A long-term sector such as agriculture needs advance planning, but that becomes increasingly difficult the more time it takes the Government to get its act together.
As we look to the future, I am optimistic that, whatever challenges the sector faces, it will do its best to meet them in the same way that it has met the challenge of the current Covid pandemic. However, ultimately, the bill will be remembered—if it is remembered at all—as a testament to the Government’s lack of ambition or imagination in relation to the future of agriculture. The Government has no vision for the future of agricultural support and seems in no rush to develop any, having even delayed the publication of the group’s report.
If the cabinet secretary spent half as much time developing that vision as he seems to have spent running around in the past 24 hours desperately trying to drum up support for his opposition to amendments that were lodged today, the sector would have had more of an idea about what the bill would mean for it in the next few years. The clock is ticking on the need to meet our climate change commitment and deliver a sustainable agricultural sector. The stakes are far too high for any more dithering. The sector needs clarity on what lies ahead, and it needs that clarity now.
18:02
The Scottish Green Party will support the bill. The cabinet secretary describes it as technical—it is about mechanisms and process. The tension that is apparent in relation to what might seem a fairly innocuous piece of legislation is because expectations were built up that it would be much more. Those expectations were there because—but I see the cabinet secretary shrugging. He is well aware of the frustrations that exist about where we are going. We are facing a climate emergency and a nature emergency. The consensus that was built around the first amendment that was discussed today was an opportunity to at least do something, but there was no meaningful discussion regarding the important provisions in that amendment.
The bill gives powers to simplify and improve the operation of any part of the CAP. Millions of pounds are involved. Are they spent properly at the moment? Do they reflect the emergencies that we are facing at the moment? What discussion is there about how they will be spent in the future? It might not be the case that money will come out of the rural sector, as Mr Mundell said; there is a strong case for more money to go into the rural sector.
I have consistently congratulated the cabinet secretary on some of the things that happen in my region—the crofting house grant, for instance. Those are the things that should have featured in the bill if we were interested in sustaining communities. Sadly, the Lib Dems seem to be closely connected to the Scottish Government, including in relation to all that happened at stage 2.
Mention has been made of payments and reports and it is important to congratulate the rural payments and inspections division staff. I think that they have a fine system and they have done a fine job of late, and we get regular updates on that. We must move forward; we cannot go back to previous problems that have been resolved, and I certainly welcome the significant moneys that have gone into doing that.
We all want an efficient system, we know that the simplification task force recommended changes and we are all familiar with the groups that have been set up, such as the farming and food production future policy group.
The first four proposals covered by the first amendment discussed today were:
“(a) land management and food production ...
(b) supporting the transitions required to meet ... net-zero emissions target ...
(c) increasing the resilience of the agricultural sector”
and
“(d) encouraging innovation, productivity, profitability and resilience in agriculture”.
Tremendous work has taken place in Scotland during the pandemic on facilitating local food supply chains, which all the parties have been involved in, and resilience for island communities. The pandemic has shown how important those aspects are and it is important that we understand that food security is a huge issue, given the climate and nature emergencies. However, as many people have said, it is therefore unfortunate that the good food nation bill is not going ahead.
Delivering flourishing communities, improving working conditions within the sector and maintaining and enhancing animal welfare are all important, but there are huge frustrations that—sadly—we do not get rational debate on many matters in the chamber because we divide on constitutional lines. I do not know of anyone, including our colleagues on the Conservative side of the chamber, who want reduced animal welfare standards—I see agreement on that. We must be aware of unintended consequences. That is another point that could have been picked up for the debate in future.
Sadly, the bill has left a lot of people frustrated. Those who are not familiar with the parliamentary process will see its title and regard it as an opportunity or vehicle through which to prosecute their interests. There is much common ground and little division on the main issues, and there is a recognition that we need to keep coming back to the issue of the climate and nature emergencies.
If I heard him correctly, the cabinet secretary said that the bill is a technical mechanism and a process, but there are other mechanisms and processes. We must have a process to do more; it cannot simply be about payments. If we are going to have any future with regard to—
Please conclude.
I beg your pardon?
I said, “Please conclude”, Mr Finnie. You have spoken for four minutes, which is your allocated time.
I was not told what time I had. I will leave it there. We will support the motion on the bill.
Thank you. That is very kind. It is hard on members who have sat through the entire debate to hear that instruction, but there we go.
I call Willie Rennie to open for the Liberal Democrats. For the avoidance of doubt, he has four minutes.
18:07
I, too, thank farmers and crofters for the work that they have done throughout the pandemic to put food on the table. While we were in lockdown, they were in the fields and on the hills. They deserve our appreciation.
The cabinet secretary referred to the constructive role of the Liberal Democrats and to Mike Rumbles’s role in particular. That approval surprised us, because it does not happen too often in the chamber. Certainly, I acknowledge the valuable contribution of Mike Rumbles, who did a great degree of work on the bill to ensure that there will be future policy on food and farming production. That work is on-going and we will watch it closely to make sure that it delivers.
The Liberals voted against nearly every amendment during stage 2, including an amendment to include a timescale for farming policy. I am bemused at Mr Rennie thanking Mr Rumbles for voting for it, when he clearly voted against it. Maybe that is the unholy alliance.
It is unhelpful on any occasion to talk about unholy alliances, particularly when people in different parties are trying to agree on what is valuable. Mike Rumbles made a significant contribution to the early part of the wider debate about future policy. It is right that, once we have set up a group of experts and advisers from different parts of society, we allow them to do their work, rather than try to second-guess them before they publish their work. That work will make a valuable contribution, and I thank Mike Rumbles for persuading the cabinet secretary to set up that group.
I also thank Oliver Mundell, Colin Smyth and Peter Chapman for their stage 3 amendments today. Although we did not support them, they helped to shape the debate in the chamber to allow for future discussion on creating a more rounded policy. I want a good food nation bill, and I want support for farmers to be protected; in fact, I want to see whether that support could also be enhanced. Most important, I want food and farming policy to be considered in the round and a mature policy to be developed. The amendments helped to focus minds, and I thank those members for that.
The bill is technical and it aims to make sure that farmers will continue to be paid in the interim. It should not have been necessary in the first place. We were told that leaving the European Union was going to make life easier. I do not think that this debate has been easy; it has plunged us into a great degree of uncertainty. The process was supposed to be less bureaucratic, yet we are just about to agree to another law and more regulations, and we will bring in negative and affirmative instruments as we progress. That will not make life easier. The claim that Brexit was to be good for our farmers and our future has fallen at the first stage.
I also thank the clerks and the members of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee for all their hard work on the bill.
It has been a testy afternoon. We have managed to explore many of the issues that are important to the future of our countryside, because the first and most important thing is to make sure that the food and farming sector, which makes a huge financial contribution to our country, is supported in every way possible. We should not lose sight of that as we debate technical matters.
We move to the open debate.
18:11
I am pleased that we are at the stage of the final speeches for the bill at last. As a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, it seems to me as though we have been considering the bill for many months—and we have, but we have to accept that much of the delay has been due to the pandemic disrupting the work of the Scottish Parliament.
The need for the bill is entirely a result of the UK’s decision to leave the EU, which was not supported by the people of Scotland at the time of the referendum and is still not supported now, given how much more we know about the disastrous effects that it will have on our economy, especially with Covid-19 and the economic crash on top of that.
During the debate and in the amendments to the bill, it has been interesting to see how the Tories have abandoned food production as the main activity of farming. The Scottish Government must prepare to take the necessary powers to continue to support our farmers and crofters. Interestingly, we have legislated for Brexit faster than the UK Government has done but, unfortunately, that has been at the expense of the inshore fisheries bill and the good food nation bill. Without that primary legislation, the Scottish ministers would not be able to simplify or improve retained EU law. The Scottish Government chose—rightly, in my view—not to take powers through the UK bill and not to recommend legislative consent, as there are concerns that it could impose unwanted policies and rules on Scottish farmers in areas of devolved competence. Agriculture is devolved and legislation for devolved policy is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
The current EU CAP schemes run from 2014 until only 2020. The bill gives the Scottish ministers the power to vary payment ceilings and financial provision in CAP schemes once they become domestic law. It allows for the continued operation of current CAP schemes and policies for a transition period up to 2024 if needed and allows those measures to be progressively improved and simplified. The bill is urgent because not only do we need it to be passed, we also need the secondary legislation that will fall under it to be in place by the end of the year so that we can continue to make payments to farmers. That means that time is critical.
Throughout the passage of the bill, NFU Scotland has supported the Scottish Government’s approach, in that the bill is focused on frameworks as opposed to policy. The NFUS agrees with the Scottish Government that the primary purpose of the bill is to enable a stability and simplicity approach, rather than enacting a future agricultural policy for Scotland.
The bill will also ensure that the Scottish Government has the ability to replicate changes that are made elsewhere in the UK, if that is what is best for Scotland. Those include avoidance of barriers to the movement and sale of goods within the UK after EU exit, and the adoption of UK-wide frameworks, which are beneficial in areas of pesticide regulation and animal health and welfare, as long as they are not imposed without our consent.
In closing, I congratulate the cabinet secretary on the very prompt distribution of farm payments, given the problems that we had with farm payments in the recent past. This bill is needed, and it is needed now. It is urgent, and I am pleased and relieved that it will pass this evening.
18:15
I begin by thanking farmers and crofters for ensuring that our country is well fed and watered. They have played a significant part in keeping the UK’s food supply going. This bill should herald a new dawn, in which producers are appreciated and valued and receive their fair share in the supply chain. I also thank Scottish Land & Estates, Scottish Environment LINK, WWF, NFU Scotland and others for their input at all stages of the bill, as well as the committee clerks and the legislative team for their hard work.
The bill is important, and we will support its final passage today. It provides for the vital continuation of farm payments to Scottish farmers. We cannot overestimate the importance of agriculture. A staggering 70 per cent of land in Scotland is used for agriculture, and that is why we must respect farmers and crofters across Scotland who want clear direction.
We have a chance to ditch an outdated common agricultural policy system, which serves every country from the Arctic to the Mediterranean with impractical demands, such as the three-crop rule and unnecessary red tape. However, that requires a Government that is willing to embrace positive change and willing to invest in increasing efficiency, driving up productivity and helping farmers promote environmental—
I am sorry to interrupt, Ms Hamilton. In a very quiet chamber, we can hear everything that is being said at the back. It is very impolite to talk when the member is making a speech.
Shaping new policy that is informed by pilot schemes and trials will be key to determining the future direction of a system that is based on a principle of public good for public money. During the entire passage of the bill, there has been a lack of policy direction from the Scottish National Party Government. We have yet to see the farming and food production future policy group report, which was intended to be launched in June at the Royal Highland Show. Those with an interest in the future of farming are quite rightly concerned at the lack of detail. I ask the cabinet secretary not to leave Scotland behind.
Moving on to the amendments, I note that one of the saddest parts of stage 3 was that Mike Rumbles and the other Lib Dems had been courted by the SNP—there was a backroom deal for a sunset clause that jeopardised all the other amendments, and all for a cheap bottle of Chianti. Sadly, despite the Scottish Conservatives lodging an amendment with a purpose clause at stage 2, it was not agreed to. Today we missed an opportunity to strengthen the law, support farmers and take greater action on food security, nature and the climate.
There have been minor flaws in the bill, which I believe have still not been addressed. I fear that the bill lacks the consultation power, and it goes without saying that organisations such as the NFUS agree with my party and have been extremely vocal that agricultural stakeholders should have a say in reform. I am grateful that the SNP has agreed to lay before Parliament a report on progress towards a new Scottish agricultural policy.
It is also concerning that the Government could make drastic shifts in funding between the two pillars. The cabinet secretary has not provided enough of a guarantee that funds will stay in the agricultural portfolio. Ministers change, and promises are not kept. We need clarity from the Government.
I will finish where I started. Farming has a vital role to play in addressing climate change, driving productivity and making farming more efficient.
I call Claudia Beamish to close for Labour.
18:18
The cabinet secretary’s approach seems to be no answers and no ambition. That complacency does not reflect this decade’s countdown to 2030, by which time we must have reduced our emissions by 75 per cent, along with making many other serious shifts that are needed in the agriculture and land use sector. This is the decade for heavy lifting. The Government needs to show us that the time between now and 2024, when the new support system is promised, is being well spent.
More detail must be given on the pilot schemes. What are their overarching aims? What will be their scope? How will they prepare farmers for the upcoming changes? When will those details be shared? We ask so many questions, but there are so few answers about that, let alone about a vision for the long-term CAP replacement scheme.
Labour shares the consensus that the system should work for the environment and climate and to bolster the productivity of the sector. Farmers, land managers and, importantly, agricultural workers are at the forefront of the challenge of climate change; they are tasked with mitigating the sector’s heavy emissions, while adapting practices and businesses to a new future. I see that as a positive shift, but it will take Government intervention, support and direction, for which we wait and wait. In the view of Scottish Labour, the bill is a missed opportunity.
I commend my colleague Colin Smyth for his amendments throughout the bill’s proceedings. I share his frustration at the Scottish Government’s lack of engagement on many of the issues, once the Lib Dems came on side. The Labour amendments found support from other parties in the chamber and from many stakeholders, because the simultaneous transitions for the sector of Brexit and moving to net zero are significant and require conscientious yet transformative strategies. Colin Smyth’s amendment 21 would have created a pathway of markers on equity and environmentalism for any future scheme.
Although leaving the EU is very worrisome, the opportunity to create purposes that are fit for climate and environmental emergencies and for Scottish farmers should have been seized. Colin Smyth’s list of objectives describes an agriculture that I and many people in the chamber and beyond need to see—many Scottish citizens would agree. The list describes a resilient, inclusive, productive, fair, safe and local farming sector that stewards our environment and respects biodiversity and animal welfare.
Many of the cabinet secretary’s concerns about the amendments are a puzzle to me, because those objectives should underpin any future developments in the agricultural and land use sectors.
Similarly, amendment 24, which laid the groundwork for a national food plan, would have been invaluable, and the stakeholder backing from Scottish Environment LINK, Scottish Land & Estates and, importantly, the Scottish Food Coalition, indicates that.
It can be said that food is a mixture of need, emotion and science. Of course, we respect the fact that there has been Covid, but as a reason for delaying the good food nation bill it seems implausible. Again, this has gone on for far too long; Government should have supported it, and we need to get it right, because the issue has such an impact on the day-to-day lives of people in this country. Given the loss of the good food nation bill, amendment 24 would have gone some way towards addressing those issues, as will my colleague Elaine Smith’s member’s bill on enshrining a right to food for us all.
To sum up, along with my Scottish Labour colleagues, I will support the bill, due to its necessity in our sad disentanglement from the EU. I urge the Scottish Government to listen today to the calls for ambition and vision and to give Scottish crofters and farmers, on whom we depend, the certainty, security and future opportunity that they need; it will not come from this bill.
Thank you. I call Edward Mountain to close for the Conservatives. I am afraid that you may speak for only three minutes.
18:23
I know, Presiding Officer, and the good thing is that I will do it in less time than that.
First, I remind Parliament of my entry in the register of interests. I thank Willie Rennie for being so polite to the committee about the hard work that was put in, especially by the people behind the committee, such as the clerks who support us and enable the work to go ahead.
Farmers in Scotland just need direction. I have always found that, if we give them the direction, farmers find the solution. All that they want to do is produce quality food and produce. They want the highest possible standards. I agree with Mr Finnie: I have yet to meet a farmer who wants to reduce animal welfare; they all want to keep it up.
They never need a prompt to go to work. Most of them were somewhat surprised on 21 May this year, when the First Minister told them that they could go back to work. They had been working non-stop, 24 hours a day, to get their crops sown and keep Scotland fed.
We now have a bill on the table, which, to my mind, could have been a lot better. It could have held the Government to more scrutiny. It could have stopped funds being siphoned out of rural budgets and into other areas.
However, I am pleased that the Government supported amendment 19. It is good news that there will be a policy on the table by 31 December 2024. We need to move forward, and I give the Parliament an assurance that I will make sure that that policy is on the table and that Scotland’s farmers are supported as they need to be.
Thank you very much. True to your word, you finished before your allocated time.
18:25
I thank all the stakeholders and individuals who contributed in any way to the bill. Whether they agreed with me or with other members, I thank them for participating in the process. I hope that all can see that we have listened and considered carefully all suggestions for changes and improvements to the bill’s measures.
I think that it is fair for me to point out that we have responded to Parliament, and to the views that were expressed to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee in particular.
We have responded by agreeing a sunset clause, after discussion with Mr Rumbles and after taking into account all the views expressed by the committee. We have changed our tack, listened and acted. We have changed our position on the statutory instrument process, as we have on issues relating to the good food nation policy. Even though that is not directly relevant to the bill, we nonetheless listened and responded, and we have acted today, as I said at stage 2 that we would seek to do.
Lastly, we responded to the Conservative amendment requiring us to report by 2024. We will be reporting long before then—it is impossible to leave things until 2024, if we want to implement change.
The fact is—I am being quite frank in saying this—that the CAP legislation and rules are highly complex. Any change is an extraordinarily complex matter; it is not really consistent with high-level debate and a list of things that are worthy and desirable in and of themselves. Change is far more complicated than that and we must pay attention to the detail to get it right. Much of that work is done in committee, as it was this morning when the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee discussed a legislative consent motion, for example.
The challenge is to work through the changes that farmers and crofters want, particularly in the short term. My assessment is that there is a special desire for reform and improvement on the penalties and inspections regime. I say that as someone who, like the REC Committee convener, has been around for quite a while and has represented farmers and crofters, some of whom have suffered extraordinarily high penalties—tens of thousands of pounds—for possibly relatively small administrative errors. That is quite shocking, and a real concern to those involved. I was passionately determined to get that right and now I have the opportunity to do that. Why? We have created through the bill the lever to do that.
The challenge is to work through what farmers and crofters want. Another thing that they want is certainty about continued income, as they are in essence running businesses. More than half of farmers and crofters in Scotland are dependent on that income for their livelihood, so it is essential that they get their money. I am delighted that they will get it three months ahead of those in England. That great achievement is thanks to the rural payments and inspections division staff, who have worked during Covid and done so well for the farming community. I pass on my sincere thanks to them.
I am determined to ensure that our hill farmers continue to receive the support to which they are entitled, not just for producing food, but as the custodians of the landscape at the heart of rural Scotland.
My discussions with farmers and crofters, such as the Lochaber group, which Donald Cameron, I think, brought along not so long ago, showed that they are far more concerned about the continuity of basic financial support than they are about having a purpose clause. Not a single farmer or crofter in this country has ever mentioned a purpose clause to me.
Members rose.
I really have not got time—I am very sorry. Why Opposition members think that that is important really defeats me, because the bill is about passing legislation for a necessary purpose; it is not about substantive policy. The approach of Opposition members is entirely up to them, but I am not sure that it is doing them any good.
We did not vote to leave the EU. We are here because Brexit is being foisted on us, but we are determined to mitigate its impacts in every way. It is my intention to continue to do that by providing certainty, confidence, continuity of income, payment to farmers ahead of our friends down south, and stability and simplicity for the next four years, which is not guaranteed in other parts of the country. The bill will help us to achieve those objectives.