Chamber and committees

I appreciate the argument that Edward Mountain has set out and that the powers in sections 13 and 16 and what results from them will be of great significance to our farmers and crofters. However, I must ask the committee not to support amendment 183, because, although I agree with Edward Mountain that, in some cases, a three-month timeframe is appropriate, I do not think it fair to restrict ourselves in that way. It might be appropriate to have longer periods for appeals and their determination. I therefore think that we need flexibility, as I set out earlier.

I appreciate the point that Edward Mountain has raised and how important it is. If he has particular cases, he should write to me about them so that we can look into them. We want to make sure that we have an appropriate appeals process in place. That will be subject to the regulations that we introduce, but we must ensure that we have the flexibility to set an appropriate period. That is why I ask the committee not to support amendment 183.

I will start with amendment 134. As Rachael Hamilton knows, and as we touched on in the discussion last week, I would love to be in a position in which we could set a multiyear budget, as we were able to do under the common agricultural policy when we were in the European Union. Ultimately, such an arrangement provides us all—especially our farmers and crofters—with clarity and certainty.

However, the UK Government has failed to meet its promise to engage in meaningful discussion with us and the other devolved Governments on the future of agriculture spending. I must be clear with everyone that that means that, after next year, we have no certainty that there will be any funding at all in the future, which, of course, is not acceptable. While that remains the case, it is not reasonable to accept amendment 134, and I urge the committee not to support it.

Sorry, convener—I was too keen to respond.

I appreciate the points that Rachael Hamilton has made, but I do not see those two things—what I have said and what officials have set out previously—as contradictory. Officials talked previously about “the basic standards”, but our basic standards are high standards, so I do not think that those two things are in conflict.

I would not agree to the amendment, because I think that it is important for us not to be prescriptive around the definition. As Rachael Hamilton touched on, there was conflicting advice on that in committee, too, and I know that other stakeholders opposed having a firm and fixed definition. That is why I encourage the committee not to support amendment 204.

Richard Leonard’s amendment 91 seeks to fill a perceived gap in the duty of agricultural wages inspectors, and it crosses over into local authority duties to inspect accommodation to determine whether it meets the tolerable standard.

When dealing with routine or complaint inspections, agricultural wages enforcement teams already report to local authorities any concerns that employees raise with them on the condition of their accommodation. That is procedural practice and it allows the appropriate authority to deal with housing issues. I therefore do not consider amendment 91 to be necessary. I also do not think that we would want to bring housing matters into the bill, which is fundamentally about providing support for agricultural and rural communities.

That said, I absolutely recognise that we need to do what we can to ensure that everyone who lives and works in Scotland, including those who work in agriculture, has access to appropriate housing. I believe that that would be best done through our wider commitment to address the overall condition of housing in Scotland.

The Scottish Government’s aim, as it is set out in our housing to 2040 strategy, is to introduce new cross-tenure housing standards, which will be set in law. The new standards will cover all homes, whether they are new or existing homes, including agricultural properties, mobile homes and tied accommodation. We want to ensure that there are no margins of tolerance, no exemptions and no substandard homes in urban, rural or island communities, in deprived communities or in tenements. By doing so, we will have consistency across all housing tenures and help people in Scotland to have access to high-quality homes that meet their needs.

Although I fully appreciate the intent behind amendment 91, I do not believe that the bill is the appropriate place for it. That is why I ask the committee not to support it.

I absolutely understand why the amendment was lodged and what it is trying to achieve. We are working with farmers, crofters and land managers to develop future support because we realise that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. We need to make sure that the measures that we introduce work for small farmers and crofters as well as for larger landowners. The work that we do on that will be important.

As far as I am aware, there has been no such communication—there has certainly been no communication with me. I have had no communication at all from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in relation to that. However, I would be happy to share such information with the committee, should I ever receive it.

I do not believe that amendment 135 is necessary. Last week, we discussed at length the need to have a rural support plan that is underpinned by statute to set out precisely how public support will be provided to deliver the objectives of the bill, how progress will be tracked and how and with whom the plan will be co-developed. In last week’s discussion, I set out in detail my intention to lodge a wraparound set of amendments to enable the points that were raised by members to be addressed. In lodging those amendments, I will consider what Colin Smyth is looking to achieve with amendment 135. Therefore, I hope that amendment 135 will not be moved today, so that we can have further conversation.

On amendments 50 and 138, I have been consistent and clear on the Government’s approach, which is to co-develop with the industry and our wider partners to ensure that the support that we underpin through legislation has the support of those who are due to receive it and, ultimately, that it best meets the wider interests of rural Scotland—agriculture, in particular. That co-design work is already well under way, so it is debatable how useful consulting on the content of regulations would be. It would unhelpfully slow down the process of making relatively minor changes to vital support, and I do not think that that would be in the best interests of farmers, crofters and land managers. I therefore urge members not to support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 50 or Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 138.

Amendment 136 seeks to make specific support accessible to tenant farmers. I am fully committed to ensuring that tenant farmers are given equality of opportunity to access the new agricultural support framework and that its four tiers work for all types of land tenure. Some of the barriers to that happening, particularly in relation to peatland restoration and agroforestry, relate to the landowner-tenant relationship and where power currently lies. The provisions in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which I introduced to the Parliament in March, seek to remedy some of the issues with that. I hope that Rachael Hamilton will support the provisions in that bill and, because we are dealing with such issues in that bill, I hope that she will not move amendment 136.

Amendment 137 proposes to place a precondition on the Scottish ministers to engage with any communities or persons who might be affected by forestry activities prior to making regulations in relation to forestry support under section 4 of the bill. Although I can understand the overall rationale for the amendment, it would create an unreasonable burden. The forestry support that the bill provides for extends far beyond woodland creation; it covers areas such as deer control, work to improve habitats and species at a landscape scale and even work to improve the accessibility of woodlands around large population centres. Given the breadth of areas that are covered, I am concerned that amendment 137 could result in a duty being placed on the Scottish ministers to engage with every community in Scotland before making regulations to adjust what forestry activities might be supported, which would be impractical.

I assure Ariane Burgess that forest planning and woodland creation guidance documents are already under review and are being aligned with the Scottish Land Commission’s community engagement guidance. I am happy to provide committee members with more information on that process. I hope that, given my explanation of the work that is under way elsewhere, Ariane Burgess will not see the need to move amendment 137.

I believe that Tim Eagle’s amendment 157 is well intentioned. As I said, the rural support plan is the right place for reporting on the monitoring and evaluation of our performance. The timescale that the Scottish ministers must produce a report within one year of the section coming into force is arbitrary and would be unreasonable, because it fails to account for other reporting cycles that would be established to each and every delegated function as best fit. I urge Tim Eagle not to move amendment 157.

I do not have much to say, because amendments 9, 12 and 18 correct some minor typographical errors that were identified following the bill’s introduction.

I will add one point on amendment 19, which reverses the repeal of section 60 of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948. Initially, we included the repeal in the bill because it was thought that the power to appropriate land in section 60 was no longer used. However, it is used, including in respect of the 2018 action that was taken by Scottish ministers to acquire the land at the former Ravenscraig hospital from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde for the purposes of local housing.

I encourage the committee to support the amendments.

I move amendment 9.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

Amendments 10 and 11 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 148 moved—[Tim Eagle].

I hope that the rest of my comments will better answer some of the concerns that you raise. I understand the concerns that have been raised, because we discussed the issue at length in committee. I also understand why the amendments in the group have been lodged. However, I am trying to set out why section 7 is relevant and important.

Amendment 154 shows a misunderstanding of why we might want provisions on compliance with guidance and why that should be taken into account when we determine whether a duty or condition has been met.

In the example of a farmer who had potentially been challenged, a provision of that type might help them to show that what they were doing was lawful or that it met a condition of support. It might help them to show that a particular penalty should not be applied, which would be more likely to ensure fairness than the contrary, as well as helping farmers to manage their businesses with certainty.

Another example is that, under the current schemes, scales of compliance are reflected in cross-compliance. There are currently 32 ways in which a breach of cross-compliance can be assessed that recognise intent, extent, severity, permanence and reoccurrence. Penalties can range from 1 per cent to 100 per cent. Guidance on penalties is currently set out on the rural payments and services website, which provides clarity to claimants.

We could use that power to set out the extent to which compliance with the guidance is relevant in determining whether there is a breach. That would provide greater certainty for farmers who just want to do the right thing. By removing it, amendment 154 would remove the ability to provide that clarity. To be fair, I do not think that that was the intent of the amendment. Therefore, I encourage Tim Eagle not to press the amendment. If he does, I encourage the committee not to support it.

Yes, of course. We have already touched on the good food nation plans and the issues that can be considered in that regard. That is meant to involve a cross-Government approach—we are looking at all the different areas that touch on food policy and giving them further consideration. Again, I think that the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 is the appropriate lens through which to look at the issues that Emma Harper has raised.