Chamber and committees

Absolutely. The point is that we want to develop it further. It is a pilot at the moment. Ultimately, we want to work with small producers to find the best means of providing support and to discover what support will work best for them.

As I have just outlined, we are at the start of that process. We must take the actions that we learn from the pilot need to be taken and look to develop that fund in future. I am more than happy to continue to engage with the member and the committee, and to provide them with an update on that work as it progresses.

Amendment 68 seeks to create an unspecified minimum level of support that an applicant can receive. I am not able to support amendment 68, because it would create the potential for public support to be gained even if the contribution to outcomes might not merit it.

Amendments 70, 71 and 159 are all variations on the same idea, which call for unspecified levels of front loading to be put into primary legislation. As I have already outlined to the committee, I am committed to supporting small producers according to their needs, and to working with them to develop that support.

Concepts such as front loading and minimum levels of direct support reflect people’s issues and the concerns that they have highlighted with the present and soon-to-be past model of support that we are currently working in. I readily acknowledge that that model has not done enough to support small producers, but, as I outlined to Rhoda Grant, we need the time to develop how best to do that in future as part of our future framework and tiered support. For those reasons, I urge the committee not to support amendments 68, 78, 71 and 159.

On Rhoda Grant’s amendments in this group, section 26 places a duty on the Scottish ministers to prepare and publish a code of practice. As I have already set out, the intention is to give farmers and crofters guidance on a range of ways in which they could voluntarily undertake activity that constitutes sustainable and/or regenerative agriculture. Many activities could be undertaken, because not everything will suit every sector, geography or business.

Rhoda Grant’s amendments would neither enable nor empower farmers and crofters to take up activity that best suits their needs. As we know, regulations are a form of legislation, so requiring them for the code of practice would make the code prescriptive and would limit farmers’ and crofters’ agency and choice. Therefore, I urge committee members not to support amendments 84 to 86.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 186 would require the code to assess the impact of species reintroduction. I suggest that there is no need for the amendment, because that assessment could already be made under section 26(3), which sets out what the code should include. Moreover, lots of different actions and activities should be considered in terms of their impact, and it is not helpful to single that one out and put it in the bill. I am also not clear why the code of practice should cover the reintroduction of species, especially when that is not defined. I therefore ask the committee not to support amendment 186.

Edward Mountain might be in luck, because I am, of course, sympathetic to the intention of amendment 187. Although the amendment’s drafting is technically defective, I am happy to work with him on the drafting of an amendment ahead of stage 3.

I am sorry to say this, given that amendment 188 is Mr Eagle’s final amendment, but, as I have said, section 26 requires the Scottish ministers to consult

“such persons as they consider likely to be interested in or affected by”

the code of practice and to lay it before the Scottish Parliament prior to publishing it, which, in my view, gives Parliament and members sufficient opportunity to input their views on the code before it is finalised. Therefore, I ask members not to support amendment 188.

I appreciate the points that members have made. A wide range of amendments have been put forward in this group, both for and against capping, redistributive action and what has been called front loading. I ask members to consider my comments on each, bearing in mind that section 9 already allows for redistributive payments.

Ariane Burgess’s amendment 67 seeks to make capping mandatory. I think that that should be a matter for the Scottish ministers to consider. The power that we have drafted and set out is a permissive one, and any decision to use it will be based on consultation with those persons the Scottish ministers consider appropriate. Edward Mountain made some points in relation to that, but he has not been part of the other discussions that we have had at previous committee meetings, when I talked about how co-development is foundational to our approach for developing policy. It is critical to remember that.

It is necessary for us to retain overall flexibility to be able to deliver the flexible, future-proof legislation that we will need if we are to deliver our vision for agriculture. It must work for us today, but we must ensure that we have legislation that will work in the future. For that reason, I ask the committee not to support amendment 67.

Amendments 68, 70, 71 and 159 all seek to address matters related to our smaller producers. I have already made clear our commitment to ensuring that smaller producers continue to thrive, and I am happy to reiterate that commitment again today. If anything, we want there to be more small producers.

Our small producer pilot, which I have previously mentioned to the committee, is just a start on that journey, as we seek to ensure that we listen to small producers and co-develop support that will work for them. Given their unique contribution to rural Scotland, we want to ensure that small producers are not considered only as an add-on to a generalist support model.

We want what we include in the bill not to restrict our ability to cap, taper or redistribute. We will undoubtedly come on to that when we discuss amendments in later groupings. It is fundamental to our approach to policy development that we work with our farmers and crofters to see which mechanism works best. I appreciate the evidence that the committee has heard in that regard, but it is important that we go through that process and that we have the flexibility provided in the bill for whatever mechanism we might choose to develop.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 102 seeks to widen the objectives to include soil health, in order to highlight the importance of the overall biological condition of soil. I absolutely recognise and agree that the protection and effective management of soil health is crucial to sustainable and regenerative farming and is aligned with our wider biodiversity and climate adaptation work, and with our efforts to cut emissions from the agriculture sector. However, the bill enables us to provide support for that purpose, as soil health is specified in schedule 1. Therefore, I do not think that amendment 102 is necessary and I ask the committee not to support it.

If Colin Smyth’s amendment 103 were agreed to, it would add further text to section 1 to emphasise the importance of sustainable agricultural businesses to rural communities and would link that to the objective set out in paragraph (a) of section 1, on the adoption and use of sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices. However, the objectives of agricultural policy in section 1 already take into consideration the importance of sustainable agricultural businesses, not least through the inclusion of the objective in paragraph (b), on the production of high-quality food. For those reasons, I ask the committee not to support amendment 103.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 106 seeks to update the objective set out in paragraph (d) of section 1, on enabling rural communities to thrive, to emphasise two of the factors that will enable communities to thrive, including shorter supply chains and incomes received by farmers and crofters. The purpose of the objectives in the bill is to cover the range of factors that foster thriving rural communities. Although I recognise the key importance of shorter supply chains and of

“the adequacy and fairness of incomes received by farmers and crofters”—

to be clear, I absolutely support those aims—I do not agree that there is a need to emphasise them in section 1, given the wide range of factors involved in enabling rural communities to thrive. I therefore ask the committee not to support amendment 106.

As with amendment 92, on the creation of a purpose clause, I believe that, although well intentioned, amendment 107 is unnecessary. The bill already makes it clear that the powers that are sought are to be exercised to meet the objectives set out in part 1. The rural support plan, on which I will offer more context, will make clear how we will deliver on those objectives and how we will evidence progress towards them and the broader statutory duties. I hope that that offer will not only deliver on the positive intent behind Colin Smyth’s amendment but will go further by making it clear that ministers will report on and evidence all of this. Accordingly, I ask the committee not to support amendment 107.

On amendment 108, I sought to ensure that the bill’s objectives were drafted sufficiently broadly and at a high enough level to capture the vision for agriculture and ensure flexibility with regard to how that will be realised. However, I also recognise that, over time, what the Government and the Parliament wish for the objectives of agricultural policy might change, and Colin Smyth’s amendment 108 seeks to provide a regulatory power to make those changes. It offers that further flexibility, with a clear place for effective scrutiny, should it be clear that changing or refining objectives in the future is needed or desirable. Therefore, I welcome Colin Smyth’s amendment 108 and ask the committee to support it.

I disagree with Rachael Hamilton’s interpretation. I come back to the rationale that I have set out for our not supporting amendment 101. I do not think that it is helpful to separate out farmers in that context, because they are such an intrinsic part of our rural communities. I referred to farmers earlier, and we have specific measures relating to our farmers and crofters. I therefore think that we are talking slightly at cross-purposes in that respect.

On amendment 26, fair work principles are core to the Scottish Government’s approach to the economy and the labour market, as I have sought to make clear with my amendment 5. The positive intent behind amendment 26 is not in question, but there are a myriad reasons why a rural business might not have sufficient funds and resources, many of which are beyond the influence of Government. Although I understand what Rhoda Grant is seeking to do, I cannot support amendment 26, not least because it asks the Scottish Government to do something that is outwith its powers, however much we might wish that the situation were otherwise. Therefore, I ask the committee not to support amendment 26.

As I touched on, there are other amendments in relation to fair work. We always have to be careful when it comes to fair work considerations, because they cut across different competences. We need to ensure that what we are introducing is within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament.

I do not know whether you are referencing the real living wage. The fair work agenda is quite broad and covers a host of other matters. We have tried to show how we are having regard to the fair work principles that we have set out, and amendment 5 is the best way for us to accomplish that.

I fundamentally disagree with what Rachael Hamilton has just said with regard to our support for rural communities. We are absolutely committed to that.

The amendment seeks to create a statutory requirement to establish and run a rural community wealth fund that would fund rural projects, and it leaves it to ministers to decide what the fund would be for and who would receive support. However, part 4 of schedule 1 to the bill already provides for powers to support rural communities and the rural economy, while section 4 already enables ministers to add, remove or modify any of the purposes for support set out in schedule 1. As a result, the amendment adds nothing new to those powers and provisions, and it is not needed.

I am proud that the Scottish Government already provides important support for rural communities through a range of programmes, such as community-led local development, the Scottish Rural Network and Scottish Rural Action, which do vital and important work in our communities across Scotland. It is fully my intention that support for rural communities will continue into the future through the powers that the bill provides, and in order to determine what that support might look like and to learn from current schemes, we will undertake a review and set out details of future proposals after the bill is enacted. I therefore urge the committee not to support amendment 133.

We are taking forward work on the good food nation plan, and I know that the committee will have a role in scrutinising that. The consultation on the plan closed last month. We were keen to engage widely, and we hope that what we have set out in the plan will achieve our overall objectives and our vision for a good food nation. I am happy to continue to engage with Rhoda Grant and other members around the table with an interest in the matter. I want to ensure that the good food nation plan is as strong as possible, and I recognise that it will, of course, evolve over time.

Elena Whitham’s amendment 22 seeks to provide for animal health and welfare to be included in the objectives, and Colin Smyth’s amendment 3 seeks to provide for animal welfare to be included. That emphasises a strand that runs from Scotland’s long-established history of having good-quality livestock to our recent agricultural vision, and that strand will continue into the code for sustainable and regenerative agriculture. At stage 1, we heard a lot from stakeholders about how important that is and that we should state that as an objective of agricultural policy in Scotland. I think that Elena Whitham’s amendment 22 is preferable to Colin Smyth’s amendment 3, so I ask the committee to reject amendment 3 and accept amendment 22.

I agree whole-heartedly with the intention behind Ariane Burgess’s amendment 23. I want to include in the new tier framework schemes that will help us to deliver that intention in a way that is consistent with the high-level objectives in section 1. However, the amendment relates to a specific aim rather than a high-level objective, so it would be inappropriate to include in the bill what is proposed in the amendment. Moreover, enabling what I have set out could, arguably, be a key way of delivering objective 4, which is

“enabling rural communities to thrive.”

I hope that that reassures Ariane Burgess and that she will not move amendment 23. However, if she does, I ask the committee not to support it.

Ariane Burgess has also lodged amendments 24 and 25. Section 1 of the bill sets out the key objectives for agricultural policy, and the third objective refers specifically to “on-farm” support. I am not sure where agricultural policy and those objectives would be delivered other than on farms. The objectives seek to intrinsically link agricultural policy and food production, with there also being the need for

“on-farm nature restoration, climate mitigation and adaptation”.

The bill does enable a much wider range of support, but section 1 is focused on agriculture and is not the place for any wider objectives. It should be remembered that the bill is primarily to support agricultural producers who then might wish to take up climate and nature measures. Widening the bill’s scope by removing the term “on-farm” risks dilution of support for farmers and does not recognise that other support is available outwith agricultural support. For example, we have the nature restoration fund. I therefore ask the committee to reject amendment 24.

On amendment 25, the bill already includes powers that enable farmers, crofters and land managers to collaborate between farms and at landscape scale if they wish to do. That includes funding for third-party support to deliver grants and support to enable such collaborations to occur. I therefore ask the committee not to support amendment 25.

Colin Smyth’s amendments 98, 99, 100, 104 and 105 remove the current objective for nature restoration and climate and replace it with a range of new separate objectives, as well as additional detail. Much consideration has gone into ensuring that the wording in the bill and in the objectives reflects terms with common meaning that can be articulated to the vision. The four objectives are not listed in order of priority, but it is important to note that, by their very nature, they are high-level and wide-ranging and are aimed at supporting the others. On-farm nature restoration, climate mitigation and adaptation are clearly covered by the current objectives, so I struggle to see what value there would be in separating them into individual objectives, as has been proposed by Colin Smyth’s amendments 98, 99 and 100.

His amendments 100 and 105 propose inserting the term “natural heritage”. I want to be clear that enhancing our nation’s natural heritage is something that we all subscribe to, but that term has contested understandings and using it might narrow the scope of intent of the existing objective. On-farm nature restoration is already suitably and clearly covered by the objectives in the bill as it is drafted, so I struggle to see what replacing it with a specific nature objective would achieve.

Amendment 104 seeks to reintroduce an objective on climate mitigation and adaptation. Those are already suitably and clearly covered by the objectives in the bill and we are already bound by the requirements of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, so I struggle to see what value that amendment offers. For those reasons, I ask the committee not to support that group of amendments.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 101 looks to alter the text of the objective in section 1(d):

“enabling rural communities to thrive.”

The amendment proposes adding reference to farmers as part of that objective. The amendment reflects the vital importance of farmers to our rural communities and I fully recognise the key role that farmers play in supporting the socioeconomic vitality of rural areas. However, farmers are an integral part of our rural communities and I do not think that they should be viewed as separate to that and to the communities where they live and work. That is why I think that Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 101 is unnecessary and I ask the committee not to support it.

During stage 1, I signalled the importance of monitoring and evaluating the contribution that support might make towards the delivery of our objectives and the meeting of our statutory duties. However, I suggest that the rural support plan would be the appropriate place for us to do that, as the full framework of support that would be enabled by the bill can be considered together rather than through a separate set of regulations, which amendment 109 calls for.

We should also be wary of requiring targets to be established when the legal effects of them are unclear and the duty to achieve them is unqualified. As we will all be aware, targets are very easy to set and are much more challenging to deliver in practice, especially when it is largely down to the efforts of a wide range of third parties to meet them. In the next group of amendments, which is on the contents and scrutiny of the rural support plan, I will set out my intention to come back to the Parliament at stage 3 with a more suitable framing of the planned requirements to cover a wide range of the issues that were raised at stage 1, as well as issues that have been raised by stakeholders, including on the monitoring and evaluation process. In my view, that approach would more effectively deliver on the intent that I believe is behind amendment 109. Therefore, I ask Colin Smyth not to press his amendment. If he does, I ask the committee not to support it.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 110 amends section 20 of the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 to require the Scottish food commission to

“keep under review progress in achieving the objective in section(1)(b)”

of the bill. Section (1)(b), on the overarching objectives of agricultural policy, says:

“For or the purposes of this Act, the objectives of agricultural policy are the production of high quality food”.

The 2022 act contains provisions to establish a new Scottish food commission to provide the oversight for the delivery of the provisions in the act. The Scottish food commission will be an executive non-departmental public body and its purpose will be to provide oversight of the good food nation plans, as required by the 2022 act. Expanding that purpose to include oversight for legislation, including the bill that we are considering, is not useful and it may prevent the commission from effectively exercising its existing functions. It is vital that the commission is allowed to focus on ensuring the delivery and implementation of the good food nation plans by Scottish ministers, local authorities and health boards. For that reason, I urge members not to support amendment 110.

On amendment 111, when public expenditure is involved and is being provided to help to deliver a wide range of objectives, it is right that regular progress is reported on. However, the expectation that review periods are set to arbitrary timescales that might not be reflective of the timetable for the support that is in place is not right. There is a distinct risk that Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 111 would require there to be reporting on such a frequent basis that it would become hugely costly and burdensome and that that would get in the way of delivery, which I do not think would be in anyone’s interests. We need to provide for appropriate monitoring and evaluation. As I have outlined, I believe that the rural support plan is the right place for that activity to be undertaken. I will set out what that might look like in the debate on the next group of amendments. Accordingly, I hope that Rachael Hamilton will not move amendment 111, and I urge the committee not to support it if she does.

I hope that you will allow me to finish my comments, because it is important that I set out what I am looking to achieve and what we hope to gain from that. I am happy to follow up with you separately. That is not normally how the process for engaging on amendments that we would lodge as a result of the discussions that we have had at stage 2 is handled. I hope that you will allow me to set out fully and clearly what we are planning to do, because that sets us on the path of a constructive way forward.