Chamber and committees

The problem with food security, as I said, is that it opens the door to trades, and I have experience of that. Food sovereignty is about the people who live in a place making decisions about the food that they want to eat. There are many aspects to it and I do not want to go into it in too much detail, as I want to get on. It is really about people making choices rather than having things imposed upon them through international trade agreements. There are many more things that could be said about it, and I can send the convener more information.

I strongly support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 21, to add

“access to locally produced food”

to the objectives. That would help to ensure that agricultural policy aligns with related food-system policies, such as the good food nation plan, the local food strategy and the right to food in the forthcoming human rights bill.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 26 would add an objective to ensure that

“rural businesses have sufficient funds and resources to enable them to provide fair work conditions.”

Fair work is critical, and that is why I worked with the Scottish Government to ensure that the rural support plan will have to consider fair work. I believe that the plan is the most appropriate place for that consideration and that amendment 26 is too detailed for the high-level objectives.

I fully support the principle of Rhoda Grant’s amendment 27 on

“enabling diversity in agricultural landholding and practice by facilitating crofting and small-scale production.”

I have lodged a similar amendment, which would make that a matter to be considered in the rural support plan, and I believe that the plan is a better place for such a provision.

On the point about consultation, I am certainly aware that we have had consultations in the past that have been difficult for people to engage with. On the one hand, the Government wants people to give feedback, but, on the other hand, given the way in which consultations are laid out and the questions are put—even though the Scottish Government does try to make them accessible—it seems, from my experience of such consultations, that they are not accessible. I would like to understand whether you get that, cabinet secretary, and what you will put in place to ensure that that is addressed. As we have said, the rural support plan is critical for farmers and crofters, and we need to have a way of engaging that is accessible for them.

My amendment 48 would add a matter for ministers to consider when they are preparing a rural support plan. That matter is

“the benefits of a diverse and resilient agricultural sector including small producers, tenant farmers, crofters and agricultural co-operative societies”.

A diverse sector with many small farms, crofts and market gardens growing different crops, producing different food and managing land differently is far better for nature and biodiversity than fewer larger farms with less diversity. Evidence shows that, on average, smaller farms are better for climate and nature on the whole. A diverse sector with different types and sizes of farms and crofts is also better for the resilience of our food sector in a climate-changing future.

A diverse sector with support for small producers and tenant farmers would also support land reform objectives of tackling the scale and concentration of land ownership and land management. Unfortunately, it appears that the sector is currently heading in the opposite direction, as I have heard about several consolidations of farms recently. Therefore, I believe that it is worth explicitly referring in the bill to

“the benefits of a diverse and resilient ... sector”.

I particularly want to highlight the benefits of a rural support plan that supports small producers to thrive. The committee’s stage 1 report on the bill quotes stakeholders as saying that small producers

“are among the most productive and generate the most jobs per hectare”,

that they are

“more likely to be implementing nature-based solutions”

and

“diversification”,

and that small-scale horticulture and market gardens

“sequester lots of carbon, are great for biodiversity and can feed 100 families on one hectare”.

It is interesting that you have said that the objective of locally produced food will be met more through the 2022 act and the good food nation plan, but how can we be sure that that will be the case?

As other members have said, the rural support plan is at the heart of this bill. It will provide certainty to farmers and crofters, so it is important to get the contents and scrutiny right.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 115 and Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 116 both list certain information that they and many of us would like the rural support plan to be required to set out. I have not lodged a similar amendment because, as I noted in the debate on the previous grouping, I have been having constructive discussions on the contents and scrutiny of the rural support plan with the Scottish Government. I have been reassured that it will explore the numerous suggestions of items to be included in the plans and will work towards an effective, workable and coherent proposal for stage 3.

On Colin Smyth’s amendment 129, I fully support the principle that ministers should act in a manner that will best achieve the legislative objectives; however, the amendment, as drafted, would remove the duty on ministers to prepare a plan, so I cannot support it.

Do you have any examples of statutory consultees so that we understand who that might be?

Yes, that would be useful.

Craig McLaren, Ailsa Macfarlane and Catriona Hill, do you have any thoughts in relation to NPF4 policies on climate change and biodiversity? Are those having more impact?

Thanks for that. Catriona, do you have anything to add?

I wonder whether the climate action hubs and networks, which are beginning to grow, could be places where we can start to see some of that action on the ground. After all, they seem to be well placed; Moray Climate Action Network and the North East Scotland Climate Action Network, for example, are in place to do this sort of thing, and perhaps the next big step is for some of those networks to start those community discussions and get people thinking about 20-minute neighbourhoods and what they mean—or, for more rural areas, the sustainable living approach that we are aware of.

I call Mark Griffin, who joins us online with some questions that relate to a recent case. The status of that case has, as we now know, changed, so he is able to ask them.

Okay. Does anybody else have anything to add on that? No. Okay. It is such fresh material there. That is the impression I have, too, Craig, but we might both be wrong. I will bring in Miles Briggs with a number of questions.