Chamber and committees

I am happy to give an assurance on that.

I will turn to the amendment and what it sets out in relation to the CAP scheme. I understand the requirement for monitoring and evaluation and that, when we are using public money, we need to be able to evidence how it is being used and what is being delivered. However, we have existing reporting requirements for CAP within the rural development regulations, and the bill does not change that. I touched on an example at the committee meeting last week: last month, we commenced the formal ex-post evaluation for the Scottish rural development programme for the entire 2014-20 programming period, as part of the formal closure requirements for the programme. We will continue to report on CAP schemes.

The purpose of the bill is to provide the powers to enable a payment framework that will replace the previous CAP legislation. As I set out in the discussions last week, I think that the rural support plan is the right place for that. Last week, I made a substantial offer on funding, which will cover what currently exists for CAP alongside what we are going to introduce as part of our future framework, too. Therefore, I ask Rachael Hamilton not to press her amendment.

In relation to front loading, I do not think that it is right that we include such commitments in the bill, because we need to have the flexibility to be able to design the new system. If we decide to take that decision after we have done the co-development work, we have the powers to do that. I do not think that it is right for us to embed in the bill a provision that commits us to a particular system or scheme without us having had that conversation. That is still part of the co-development work that is to be undertaken.

I am more than happy to have that conversation.

I turn to Brian Whittle’s amendment 56, which seeks to amend part 4 of schedule 1 by specifically referencing the

“identification of rural anchor institutions”.

I fully recognise and value the important role of anchor institutions in supporting rural development, and I am happy to support amendment 56.

Amendment 57 seeks to enable support to be provided to rural communities to help to create community benefits. Amendment 58 seeks to enable Scottish ministers to assist people to start a business or enterprise for the purpose of nature restoration, which is a core objective of our agricultural policy and our vision for agriculture. Amendment 59 seeks to enable Scottish ministers to provide support to assist

“persons to invest in nature-based enterprises in rural areas.”

I agree that we should be able to do that. Amendment 62 seeks to amend schedule 1 to widen the activities that could be supported under the new rural support framework. I support the objectives behind those amendments, and I urge the committee to support amendments 57 to 59 and 62.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 148 seeks to amend paragraph 12 of schedule 1, which covers support for recreational access to land. It would have the effect that support could be provided only for the purpose of improving recreational access to land. However, I do not think that that would be a useful change. If persons use the improved access, access must be responsible under the right to roam, as set out in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. If they use the improved access on some other basis—for example, because it is a right of way or because the owner gives consent—ministers would not be able to provide support. I ask the committee not to support amendment 148.

Amendment 60 seeks to improve paragraph 13 of schedule 1, on soil, by providing further details of what can be done for the purpose of improving or protecting soil health and quality, which are of vital importance for our farmers and the wider environment. I think that the clarification provided by the amendment is useful, so I ask the committee to support it.

Amendment 61 seeks to amend schedule 1 so that assistance should include actions relating to

“agriculture, forestry, land use and land use change.”

I am happy to support that amendment.

Amendment 149 seeks to augment the purposes of support to include compensating persons in respect of the additional costs that are incurred and income that is lost by the person in consequence of the implementation of the reintroduction of particular species. I have some sympathy with what Tim Eagle is trying to achieve with his amendment. As has been mentioned, we provide compensation in relation to some species, but we do not normally do that through this route. However, it would be worth while to provide the opportunity to provide such support in the future under schedule 1.

I note that amendment 149 also covers the introduction of non-native species, which I do not think was necessarily intended. I ask Tim Eagle not to press amendment 149 at this stage in order to allow me to consider the issues further ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 63 seeks to amend schedule 1 to expand support under the new proposed rural support framework to include those persons, businesses and organisations that wish to preserve or protect water and the land’s capacity for holding water. I am therefore happy to support amendment 63.

Lastly, amendment 201 seeks to add a definition of “horticulture” to paragraph 2(2) in schedule 1. I think that the word would otherwise take its ordinary meaning, which does not appear to be particularly different but offers more flexibility. That said, I understand that the amendment is intended to bring further clarity and I am happy to support it, although I may come back to tweak some of that wording ahead of stage 3.

That is what I am just coming to. I am talking about all those amendments in the round.

Section 9(2) already places on the Scottish ministers a requirement to consult, and, because capping is a budget control mechanism, the timing of any regulations will be linked to the standard budget processes. It is doubtful that that would be possible within the six-month period that is specified in amendment 160.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 163 also seeks to amend the bill in a way that could limit the breadth of consultees on the expenditure of public money, even though there is potentially a wider interest in that regard. For the reasons I have outlined, I encourage the committee not to support amendments 160 to 163.

On amendment 164, we had initially proposed that regulations under the section be subject to the negative procedure, as I expected that the power would be used in respect of matters of detail and to fine-tune funding in the light of experience, in order to provide the best outcome against the vision while trying to maintain public value. However, I appreciate the concerns that have been raised by stakeholders as well as by MSPs, so I am happy to recommend that the committee support amendment 164.

Absolutely. The on-going oversight and the parliamentary scrutiny are important. We would have to set out whether we intended to continue that support if we needed to, and we would do that in good time or before the deadline approached. What we have set out in the bill as drafted enables us to continue to do all that, but it also provides for parliamentary scrutiny of the use of those powers, which is important. If the committee supported the amendment, it would remove some of that scrutiny, which is why I ask the committee not to support the amendment.

I have already said that section 10 provides us with the powers, but we would have to bring forward the meaning of “the public interest” in regulations. I cannot produce a definition, because we have not yet introduced those regulations.

I appreciate the intent behind amendment 76, in the name of Rhoda Grant. The bill’s current drafting already commits the Scottish ministers to consulting appropriate persons, but the amendment signals more explicitly the commitment that I have already set out to co-developing the detail of support, which will come before the Parliament in secondary legislation. I am therefore more than happy to support the amendment. However, purely because of my support for that amendment, I must ask the committee not to support amendment 171, as I do not think that it will be needed.

Amendment 80 specifies that grazing committees and co-operatives can claim support as a collective for joint projects, which, as Rhoda Grant has outlined, will be separate from individual support. There is absolutely no doubt that crofting common grazings play a really important role in collective action to mitigate and adapt to climate change, as well as in protecting and restoring nature. I also note that amendment 81 complements that by defining the phrase “grazing committee”. I strongly agree that we should be supporting grazing committees and co-operatives, and I am happy to do whatever is thought to be helpful to clarify that in the bill. For that reason, I welcome both of Rhoda Grant’s amendments and urge the committee to support them.

Amendment 76 agreed to.

Amendment 171 not moved.

A lot of important points have been raised today. I would also like to think that there are a lot of points of agreement around the table, given what we have heard so far and what I think we will hear when other amendments are spoken to.

First, I turn to the amendments in my name. Amendment 6 seeks to add “pig meat” to the list of products in paragraph 3(3) of schedule 1 to which Scottish ministers can provide particular support. That also includes support for ancillary purposes such as the packaging or distribution of the product. We are committed to supporting the pig sector, and enabling such support will give us more tools to do that.

Amendment 8 seeks to clarify that enterprises to which Scottish ministers might provide support in schedule 1 include

“co-operative societies and similar organisations.”

Agricultural co-operative societies make a vital contribution to our diverse agriculture industry and its diversity, and they are important for ensuring that we have innovation, sustainability, resilience and, ultimately, food security for Scotland and its rural communities.

Amendment 10 seeks to amend schedule 1 so as to give ministers as much flexibility as possible in providing support relating to research and development.

Amendment 11 seeks to amend paragraph 8(2) of schedule 1 to extend the range of ancillary activities for knowledge, innovation, education and training that can be supported to include the full range of purposes, as set out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 8(1) of the schedule. Including paragraph (8)(1)(d) extends the coverage of ancillary activities so as to include support in connection with research and development to

“support those living, working or operating in rural areas ... improve or support rural land (or land use), or ... improve or support the environment”.

I ask the committee to support amendments 6, 8, 10 and 11.

I will turn to some of the other amendments in the group. Amendment 140 clarifies that growing crops is an agricultural activity, including, in particular, the growing of energy and non-food crops. It recognises that energy crops are an increasingly important component of Scottish agriculture as a way of meeting our growing domestic demand for biomass feedstock. I appreciate the discussions and the points that have been made around the table today about competing pressures on land. We must always seek to balance the amount of sustainable domestic biomass production without significantly impacting wider land use needs and opportunities, including food production. I ask the committee to support amendment 140.

I hope that some of my comments will help to provide Tim Eagle with some of the clarification that he seeks with his amendments.

Section 7 enables us to make regulations about guidance. Regulations can provide for whether any particular guidance should be published or laid, whether any person should have regard to the guidance, the legal effect of not complying with it and the status of guidance in legal proceedings. We issue a lot of guidance, most of which can and should be administrative guidance only. It does not need to be laid or formally published and it can stand on its own terms. However, some guidance is more significant than that, which is why the power in section 7 is important. We have to be able to make rules about the important guidance, including about the cases where compliance with the guidance is relevant to some other question and cases where guidance should be admissible and have evidential value in legal proceedings.

On amendment 151, the code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture aims to provide guidance for farmers, crofters and land managers on how to deliver sustainable and regenerative practice. It is intended not to be prescriptive but to provide examples and good practice. It is also intended to be readily updated and added to as our practice and understanding of what works in those practices adjust over time.

In section 26, we set out that

“The Scottish Ministers must prepare and publish a document providing guidance on sustainable and regenerative agriculture”

and that, in doing so, we have to consult our industry and, of course, beyond that. The code is explicitly referred to in section 7 to make it clear that the guidance in the code is guidance for the purposes of the powers in that section. Removing that reference, as amendment 151 proposes, would not change the status of the guidance in the code, because it would still be guidance. That is why I encourage the committee not to support amendment 151.

Amendments 152 and 153 remove the flexibility for ministers to choose to simply publish guidance or to lay it before Parliament, or to do both. I thought that there would be merit in that flexibility, which is why the bill was drafted in that way, but I am more than happy to support amendments 152 and 153.

I am still not entirely clear what the issue is with amendment 154. The power in section 7 is relatively modest and technical. Any regulations that we make will, of course, be subject to scrutiny by the Parliament. I do not know whether Tim Eagle thinks that the power would be used to impose unfair burdens on farmers and crofters and that we would penalise them for not following guidance. I can clarify that that is not the case. It is certainly not what we have set out.

I will have to follow that up with my colleague Paul McLennan, the Minister for Housing, and discuss it with him, because I do not have that information in front of me at the moment. I could provide more information on that afterwards.