Chamber and committees

My amendment 137 would require ministers to engage with and consult communities that would be affected by forestry activities before making regulations on those activities. It is part of a package of amendments that includes amendments 114, 118 and 176, which seek to make changes that stakeholders have suggested in order to expand and strengthen the section on forestry support to ensure that the right trees are planted in the right places.

I am aware that there are requirements for community engagement in the forestry legislation and the related standards and guidance, but those pertain largely to felling and public land, which means that there are gaps with respect to planting and other activities on private land, as well as the farming-forestry interface.

Community engagement and consultation are particularly important when it comes to forestry, as forests are often hugely valued by the local community and are seen as a public amenity to a greater extent than is the case with most agricultural land. I would be interested in hearing the Scottish Government’s response.

I really appreciate that comment. We support nitrogen fixing through natural crops, but the concern is that the use of those crops would be focused on feeding livestock.

As I have said, amendment 149 is about reintroducing species. Management schemes such as the sea eagle management scheme already help farmers to deliver a positive outcome when working alongside other species, but the idea of compensation assumes that reintroductions are inherently negative. This sees nature as a problem, and that cannot be the way forward for sustainable and regenerative agriculture. Instead, we should look to improve and extend species management schemes to ensure that farmers are not out of pocket.

I support Mairi Gougeon’s amendment 8, which clarifies that enterprises that can be supported include

“co-operative societies and similar organisations.”

I would welcome the cabinet secretary’s assurance that food hubs would be included, too, as they are growing in popularity and offer a lifeline to small producers in the form of shared infrastructure and markets.

Finally, I have a query about Rhoda Grant’s amendment 53, which seeks to add both “herbs” and “machinery” to the list of supportable products. I understand that it has been motivated by a desire to support machinery rings, which allow crofters to collaboratively purchase equipment. That approach should, of course, be encouraged, but I am not sure whether the amendment as worded would allow support to be provided for that. It looks as though it would enable support for the production of machinery, and I would appreciate some clarification in that respect.

Yes.

I fully support the intention behind Richard Leonard’s amendment 91, on inspections of agricultural workers’ accommodation. For months, I have been meeting representatives of the Worker Support Centre Scotland and raising with the cabinet secretary its concerns about the exploitation of seasonal workers on large soft fruit farms. One such concern is that the housing attached to those jobs is too often of poor quality, unsafe and unhygienic.

Last year, the centre supported 63 farm workers on housing issues, including holes in caravans, damp, black mould, rodent infestation, broken toilets and windows that would not open. Clearly, that problem needs to be addressed, but, following my discussions with the cabinet secretary, I accept the Scottish Government’s position that the bill that is before us is not the right place to do that. I would appreciate it if the cabinet secretary could set out the other routes that the Government is exploring to address the issue.

My amendments in the group are probing amendments that are intended to open up the conversation about the redistribution of the agriculture support budget, which they have done. An economist turned crofter with whom I have been working calculated that a full half of all farm support payments go to just 6.6 per cent of recipients: those with the most land. My amendments in the group and those from Colin Smyth, Rhoda Grant and Beatrice Wishart in support of redistribution would help to redress that imbalance.

Redistribution would be consistent with land reform objectives to tackle the scale and concentration of land ownership. It would also be consistent with biodiversity objectives, discouraging the consolidation and standardisation of farms with little diversity, and with the desire for a diverse and resilient sector. It would also help to maintain EU alignment, since the new EU cap includes a mandatory redistributive element.

I want to underline the vital importance of achieving those policy intentions, and to impress on the Scottish Government the importance of taking on board the discussion today and the calls from numerous stakeholders for redistribution. I also want to underline that, although the cabinet secretary frequently mentions the small producers pilot, what I hear from those producers is that that pilot is not working and that that funding is not reaching small producers directly. We need to do something to address that.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that Edward Mountain’s amendments 161 and 162 and Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 163, which are about consulting on capping and tapering, are not necessary, as the bill already requires ministers to consult such persons as they consider appropriate.

On Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 159, I do not agree that a definition of payments under tier 1 is needed in the bill, as that is still being determined by the Scottish Government. The bill is a framework bill to provide flexibility for the tiers and to enable payment schemes to evolve over time.

I seek to withdraw amendment 67.

Amendment 67, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 158 not moved.

Amendment 68 moved—[Ariane Burgess].

My amendments in the group relate to redistribution of the agriculture support budget in line with social justice principles. Under the area-based system, the more farmland you have, the more support you get, regardless of what you do with that land or how much food you produce.

Many stakeholders are rightly highlighting the injustice of that system. Committee members might remember the demonstration outside the Scottish Parliament in February that was organised by the Landworkers Alliance, the Scottish Crofting Federation and three other organisations. They do not think that it is right that half of the agriculture budget goes to fewer than 10 per cent of Scottish farms—the largest, wealthiest and most profitable ones—while the small and medium-scale farmers, crofters and growers who produce our food and support nature restoration are struggling to make ends meet. It is not fair for farmers and it is not fair for the Scottish public, who expect public funds to support public goods, not to subsidise already wealthy landowners.

Section 9 gives ministers the powers to cap and/or taper farm support payments. If enacted, that would mean that funding would not increase indefinitely in line with the amount of farmland owned. That recognises that there is social value in limiting the amount of public funds given to the largest, wealthiest farms and in freeing up some of the agriculture budget to redistribute to some smaller or medium-sized farms, crofts or plots.

The current farm payment system already makes use of some minor capping and tapering and it would be seriously regrettable to backtrack on that progressive policy. Amendment 67 changes the power for ministers to enact capping and tapering to a duty to do so.

Amendment 68 would establish a minimum income floor for recipients of agricultural support. That would work well in conjunction with my later amendments on establishing a productive activity assessment as an optional route to qualify for income support, so that we can be sure that public money is supporting public goods. The farmers and crofters who are working hard to provide those public goods should be assured of a liveable income. Surely, that is essential to achieving the Government’s fair work and just transition aspirations. Perhaps it could form the basis of a trial of some kind of universal basic income for all farmers and crofters in Scotland.

Amendments 70 and 71 would give ministers the power to front load farm payments, which would mean that farmers would receive a higher rate for their first number of hectares up to a certain threshold. That would do the most to support small producers, who currently receive very little, if any, of the farmers support budget. Scotland has an income tax and benefits system that redistributes money from the asset-rich to the poor, because our society sees the value in that. Why not do similarly in farming, where just 9 per cent of holdings account for 76 per cent of the land? The Scottish Government has said that it will transform the way that it supports farming and crofting, but the committee’s report quotes the SCF’s submission that,

“after over 20 years of discussion about ‘public funds for public goods’ ... no commitment is made to meaningfully reform the system of area-based payments which, in its present form, mainly favours large landowners.”

That needs to change.

The cabinet secretary assured me that the Scottish Government is exploring the most effective mechanisms for achieving those policy intentions, which might include some combination of capping, tapering and/or front loading, or other mechanisms. I would welcome additional assurance about that.

I support Colin Smyth’s amendment 158, which would limit capping and tapering to tier 1, the most basic level of farming support. That would avoid the imposition of limits on schemes in tiers 2 and 4 that are designed to incentivise improvements for climate and nature and other policy objectives. Capping and tapering tier 1 would free up additional budget for those crucial schemes.

I move amendment 67.

Not moved, convener.

There is an error in the groupings, convener. The groupings have amendment 157, but the marshalled list has amendment 139.

I will speak initially to my amendment 201, which is a new amendment and seeks to add a definition of “horticulture” as used in part 2 of schedule 1. It states:

“‘horticulture’ means the growing and harvesting of edible horticultural crops, including fruit, vegetables, tubers, mushrooms, herbs, bush and tree nuts and seeds”.

I just wanted to clarify that, because some people interpret horticulture in a narrower way, and I want to ensure that growers producing any of those crops will be eligible for support.

In that light, I cannot support Kate Forbes’s amendment 140, which would allow the production of crops for energy—known, as we have heard, as biofuels—to be supported with agricultural money. If amendment 140 were agreed to, it would lead to double funding for biofuel production and increase the use of prime land for fuel, taking it away from food production. Many of the large farms that grow crops for biofuels already receive an enhanced guaranteed price for the energy produced via Office of Gas and Electricity Markets—or Ofgem—energy supply contracts. Should those same crops also receive basic payment scheme money, meaning that, in effect, already wealthy funded farms receive double funding from taxpayers? Some 11 per cent of Scottish arable land is already being used to grow biofuels. Instead of incentivising more of that, agricultural support should be focusing on food production.

Just yesterday, the UK Government announced a new package of measures in support of domestic food production, notably more support for horticulture—that is, for food—which it said will boost food security. If Kate Forbes’s amendment 140 is accepted, my definition of “horticulture” in amendment 201 will be even more important to ensure support for growing fruit and seeds for food, not only for energy.

My amendments in the group are intended to see whether the cabinet secretary will meet me to work on the significant problems brought on by a payment system that is exclusively based on area of land. We have already discussed the injustice with the principle of the area-based system, which needs reforming through redistribution, but I recognise that the area-based payment system is working smoothly and that many recipients are happy with it. The amendments would not change that.

The amendments are designed to give small-scale farmers, crofters and growers a different route to access and be assessed for direct payments for future tier 1 and tier 2 payments. Under the current system, farmers, crofters and growers on less than three hectares of land are ineligible for basic payments. Even those with more than three hectares but who are still on the smaller end of the spectrum, such as the numerous small producers in the Highlands and the Western Isles, receive negligible amounts of financial support. Others do not bother applying, because the amount that they would receive would not be worth the time and effort spent on the application. However, farmers, crofters and growers are providing public good—food for local markets, jobs and stewardship of the land—and they should be supported. Although the amendments would not remove the area-based payment option, they would add a second option that would throw small producers a lifeline—a route to direct payments at a meaningful level, based on their agricultural activity or labour.

Amendment 74 to section 13 stipulates that regulations must allow the recipients the choice of being assessed for support either on the basis of land area or on the basis of productive agricultural activity.

Amendment 78 would oblige ministers to create criteria for receiving support on the basis of agricultural activity. Eligibility would be based on either

“the amount of hours of activity”,

being the labour, per year, or the standard labour requirements—SLR—for the holding for farms that had already been assessed in that way. In either case, ministers would set a threshold for the amount of labour required on a holding in order to be eligible for direct payments.

Amendment 79 specifies that, when making provision for eligibility criteria in connection with the activity carried out by any recipient, ministers may consider the criteria as set out in my previous amendment or establish a turnover threshold that farms must meet alongside producing a minimum of 10 crops.

Amendment 75 would remove the line on page 7 of the bill that states that ministers may make provisions about

“how the amount of support is to be determined.”

That would be superseded by my amendment 74, which would require regulation to allow recipients to choose how the amount of their support will be determined.

To pre-empt any concerns that my amendments could incentivise overproduction, let me explain why they would not. First, the proposals are different from the old hedge payments. Farms would not receive a unit payment per ewe or per crop; they would receive payments for being a productive farm business. Secondly, activity-based eligibility has been implemented in Austria and it has not led to overproduction there. Instead, the small farms that have chosen that option have tended to diversify and have increased the value of what is produced on farm. For example, pig farms have started to process meat into charcuterie on farm, and other farms have expanded agritourism offerings. That is because the labour-based payments have incentivised them to expand their rural businesses, contributing to thriving rural communities.

Large and medium-sized farms would opt to continue to receive area-based payments, as they would receive more support via that route. They would not be incentivised to overproduce, and both the market conditions and cross-compliance conditions would continue to limit farms from overstocking livestock. The number of people directly employed by farms is now only 61,000, which is about half of what it used to be. Providing an option to link payments to labour would support more jobs on the land, which we desperately need in order to achieve the objectives of the bill.

My next amendments, amendments 170 and 173 to 182, would replace the concept of payment entitlements with those of assessments and allocations throughout the bill. “Entitlements” gives the impression that farms are entitled to receive public money solely for occupying land, and they are not based on any assessment. They also lead to trading entitlements, which is firmly not in the public interest. My series of amendments would modernise that antiquated system and would make it fairer and more accurate.