Chamber and committees

No, I am not saying that. I am just introducing another option. At the moment, farmers get support through a land-based payment, and I am introducing an activity-based payment. One option is that, if it makes sense for the farmer to go down the route of having people working on farm, that is the way that they would do it, but the other way would remain in place. As I said earlier, it is clear that that is working smoothly for some farmers, but we need to find a way to support very active small producers who receive absolutely nothing at the moment. That is the intention, and that is what I want to explore with the cabinet secretary.

Amendment 182 defines “allocation” as

“the amount of support to be provided”

once an area-based or activity-based assessment

“has been completed.”

Amendments 170 and 174 to 181 simply replace the word “entitlements” with “allocations” in each place.

Amendment 173 would allow for regulations on payment allocations to set a

“minimum labour requirement”

or for an

“assessment and allocation of standard labour requirements”

for those who opt to be assessed by activity.

I would appreciate hearing the Scottish Government’s responses to my amendments, and I would very much like to continue constructive discussions in this area as we move to stage 3. I will therefore not move my amendments at this stage, and I will seek to withdraw amendment 74.

I move amendment 74.

You will see what I will do when I come to move the amendments—or not.

As for supporting your definition of soil health and the objectives, I did not think that the bill was the appropriate place to put them. We need to keep the objectives really clear, but the main point is that farmers, crofters and food producers must look at soil biology as we go forward. We need to recognise that soil is a living system and understand its ecosystem, and we must have a way of supporting people through the testing processes. We know about the national test programme, but it must factor in the soil’s biological conditions. I know that many farmers and crofters are already moving towards regenerative practices, but they do not have the support to look at the soil and the impacts of their good practices.

My amendment 62 would give ministers the power to support farmers and crofters to maintain areas of land for nature

“and to prevent further biodiversity loss.”

Given that the conversion of land into farmland is one of the key drivers of biodiversity loss, it is crucial that landowning farmers, crofters and other land managers do not feel financially pressured to convert more land into farmland and that they receive some income for providing public goods by protecting wildlife and habitats, such as our iconic machair, alongside their actively farmed land. That will also be crucial in maintaining EU alignment through the 30 by 30 commitment to protecting 30 per cent of our land for nature by 2030.

There might be some concerns about land being set aside and then neglected, but the land would need to meet certain climate and nature standards as part of the enhanced conditionality of the new payment framework, and I would argue that the support that would be enabled by all my amendments in this group should not be competitive. I also suggest that it be extended to farmers, crofters and other land managers who have already set aside land and provided public goods such as restored and rewetted peatland, to reward them for previous good actions that they paid for out of their own pockets.

My amendment 142 would add a list of benefits that woodlands can provide on farms, to make it clear that planting and maintaining trees on farmland for those purposes would be eligible for support. The purposes outline some advantages of agroforestry or integrated planting, including

“providing shelter to livestock ... reducing flood risk ... reducing soil loss”

and

“reducing risks to wader birds”.

If done without proper sensitivity, tree planting on farmland can be very damaging to waders, including curlews, the UK’s most threatened breeding bird. Therefore, support should incentivise agroforestry to reduce that risk.

I also have two probing amendments in order to continue the conversation about ensuring that the right tree gets planted in the right place. Scotland is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. Native trees can and must play a significant role in realising the Scottish Government’s vision to halt nature loss by 2030, and my amendment 146 would ensure that all woodland that was supported through public funds would have a positive impact on biodiversity as well as on carbon and, where appropriate, on local amenity, too. Existing forestry legislation and guidance on such issues pertain largely to felling and to public land, which leaves gaps with regard to planting and other activities on private land, as well as the farming-forestry interface, as I have mentioned.

Amendment 146 would ensure that public funds deliver public goods and are not spent on forestry projects in a way that will have a negative impact on the environment through soil damage and/or on communities, while amendment 147 would require that any forestry project that was on land of 40 hectares or above or that would

“exceed 40 hectares if adjoined with existing woodland”

could receive support only if an environmental impact assessment had been conducted.

Spruce plantations are notorious for causing the spread of non-native invasive species through self-seeding, damaging native woodlands and high nature value grassland and jeopardising all the progress that has been made on restoring peatland, not to mention the issue of all the money that has been put into that. That is why environmental impact assessments should be a precondition of public funding for forestry projects of such size. For a matter of such importance, it is not enough to rely on guidance being followed. I am aware that there is already a threshold of 20 hectares for forestry on most land types; however, that is only guidance and, should the amendment be agreed to, I will lodge another amendment at stage 3 to change the threshold for support to 28 hectares, to align with the guidance.

I should say that I will not move the forestry amendments today; they are intended to start a conversation in advance of stage 3.

Turning to some of the other amendments in the group, I do not support Tim Eagle’s amendment 141, which seeks to enable the provision of support for “deer and game farming”. The high levels of deer throughout much of Scotland are blocking an effective response to the climate and nature emergencies. We know that deer numbers need to be reduced through culling, and we need more people working in deer stalking, as such roles are not only crucial but are key to rural communities. I would like there to be more support from the rural support budget for deer stalking instead of new support for deer farming. Furthermore, we should be eating the wild venison that is killed by necessity. If we encourage the production of more farmed deer in Scotland, there will be a glut on the market, leading to more food waste.

I worry, too, that support for game farming would largely go to wealthy grouse moor and estate owners, who already benefit the most from area-based farm support systems. The amendment, therefore, seems to run counter to several policy objectives, and I cannot support it.

I also cannot support Tim Eagle’s amendment 143, which seeks to enable support specifically for “foraged crops” to feed livestock. The list of products that can be supported already includes cereals, oilseeds, protein crops and fodder, and I am wary of increasing support for the production of livestock feed when growing food directly for humans uses less land and less energy.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 149 seeks to add “reintroduction of species” to the list of things that farmers can be compensated for if—

Rachael Hamilton’s well-intentioned amendment would insert a target of 60 per cent of the food procured by each local authority to be produced within 60 miles within three years of the bill’s royal assent. That is an admirable aim, and I fully support the intention to incentivise and support local food production and procurement. However, the target is problematic in practice for a number of reasons.

For the foreseeable future, it would be very difficult to source enough bread, pizza, most pulses, most fruit, tomatoes, peppers, sweetcorn, rice and more from within 60 miles. That is the unfortunate reality, and it will not change unless the Scottish Government increases support for local small-scale production, which my amendments 48 and 201 seek to achieve.

The next practical problem is to do with definitions. Is a sausage roll that is produced in Lanarkshire local if it is produced with Polish pork and French flour? Tracking back to ingredients is a challenge.

The next issue is that 60 miles is a long way for local authorities in the central belt but not far for isolated islands. An islands impact assessment would be needed.

Then there is the legal difficulty. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which the UK Government introduced, makes a requirement to source from a particular part of the UK illegal under the principle of non-discrimination. I would be interested in hearing whether the Scottish Government is in conversation with the UK Government about allowing the specification of locally produced food in public procurement.

In any case, such a target should be included in a statutory plan, such as the good food nation plan or the rural support plan, not in primary legislation.

I support the principle of procuring local food but I do not support the amendment. However, I would welcome a commitment from the cabinet secretary to add practical measures to the rural support plan and the good food nation plan to support the local food economy using funding from the agricultural budget. That would allow a target such as the one that Rachael Hamilton proposes to become much more achievable.

It was just one number in a grouping, not the groupings themselves.

I was just finishing.

For all those reasons, I support those amendments.

I will indicate my support for some of the amendments in the group. I support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 82, which would require ministers to make provision for publishing information about rural support that is provided. Rural land management impacts all of us, through its large impact, both positive and negative, on the environment, climate and our food supply.

For many people in Scotland, there is a sense that the wealthiest landowners receive the most public money simply for owning land, and that is unjust. For transparency’s sake, it is only right that the public can find out who is supported, how much they receive and why, and what public goods are enabled by that support.

For similar reasons, I support Richard Leonard’s amendment 13. If some landowners are not applying for support directly but are using third-party businesses to do so, the public and the public purse still have a right to know who is the ultimate recipient of that support. That would help to close any loopholes that might allow large landowners to receive support above the capping level, if they apply through more than one business.

I take on board the cabinet secretary’s point about the lack of a clear definition in Scots law of “beneficial ownership”. If we had a system, the information that would be published—thanks to Rhoda Grant’s and Richard Leonard’s amendments—could support the creation of a cadastral system for Scotland, which the Scottish Land Commission has recommended. That would be a set of records and maps that described the ownership boundaries, value and use of land, as is used in other countries such as the US and 14 EU members.

Having all that information in one place would be crucial for a carbon emissions land tax or any land-based replacement for council tax. If the information needs to be collected for those purposes anyway, there should be no reason not to publish it for transparency, provided that data protection is properly considered.

Publishing that information would also allow an external body to conduct a value-for-money assessment of the support that is provided, which I intend to propose at stage 3.

I am interested in discussing this further and in bringing together the folks in the forestry sector and the RSE to get clarity in relation to the misunderstanding of how forestry EIA regulations work. The RSE has done a tremendous body of work. It would be helpful to keep it on board and to get some kind of collaboration going with the society.

I am done.

No, because we need to focus it in that direction.

Clare Symonds wants to come in.

We hope that we will have you back—or somebody from the CERG—to talk about that a year from now. I will run along the line from Morag Watson to Esmé Clelland, then Clare Symonds, specifically on work on biodiversity.