Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s indication that she will meet me. I wish to clarify why the measures contained in my amendments in this group are needed. I have been speaking with the cabinet secretary about a dedicated support scheme for small growers, which would be hugely welcomed by key workers in green jobs. We should do more to support them, and we should give them access to the core farm support payments. After all, horticulture is farming.

Stakeholders believe that a separate scheme for market gardens would be more precarious and time limited than mainstream tier 1 and tier 2 funding. There is also an argument that small producers need direct income support even more than large farms do, because they are smaller and are more likely to be operating on a very thin profit margin. Allowing small producers—and, specifically, market gardeners—to access tier 1 and tier 2 funding would show that the Government is serious about transforming farm support and using it to drive the objectives stated on page 1 of the bill.

My amendments provide a route for those small producers to access core direct payments at a meaningful, fair level, based on the amount of work that they do and on their output, but without changing the entire area-based system, which is working smoothly for many recipients.

I sincerely welcome the cabinet secretary’s offer to explore the issues in advance of stage 3. I believe that that would be a significant step forward.

Amendment 74, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 170 and 75 not moved.

I am sorry, convener—can we go back to amendment 140? I was just thrown a little bit by your earlier comment. I was not saying that anything was wrong—I was simply saying that the grouping on the power to provide support procedure contained amendment 157 when, in fact, it should have been amendment 139.

Can we go back to amendment 140, please? I would like to vote no on it.

I will speak briefly in support of Edward Mountain’s amendment 96. Our committee has consistently heard from farmers about the success of peer-to-peer learning, and that is particularly true when it comes to regenerative and agroecological farming.

The farmers who are already using those methods can demonstrate the benefits that they have seen on their farm, which will inspire other farmers to try the same practices, as we heard from Edward Mountain. I made sure that peer-to-peer learning was highlighted in our committee report, and I am glad that Edward Mountain has picked that up for an amendment.

I am a big supporter of hemp production and the work that is being done by the folks in the Borders. The great thing about hemp is that we can both grow food and create the fibre that is then used for the material. Hemp can be used for a lot of things. What I am saying is that we should not put agriculture money into supporting something that will be used as fuel when there is already money that people who grow biofuels can get. Agriculture money needs to go towards producing food.

My amendment 51 pertains to the section on support that helps ensure that agricultural activity or activities of a certain type continue in a particular area or on a particular type of land. It simply adds the possibility for that support to evolve, instead of continuing exactly as it is now, and it would give ministers the ability to adjust conditions for, say, the less favoured area support scheme or the Scottish upland sheep support scheme while still continuing to provide support. That would provide sufficient time for recipients to plan and adapt, help farmers and crofters make a good living through sustainable and regenerative practices and align agricultural support with climate and nature objectives in this time of climate and nature emergency.

My amendment 52 simply adds “wool” to the list of products that can be supported. Wool is a natural material that could substitute for oil-based materials in several parts of the economy and our lives, yet farmers and crofters do not get a good return—actually, no return—from it on the market. Therefore, its production should be supported.

My amendment 57 adds to the section on supporting rural communities by making it clear that support can be received for providing community benefits such as “clean air, ... clean water”, “access to nature”, “biodiversity gains” and “wider economic and social benefits”. At stage 3, I would like to amend amendment 57 to add natural flood management to the list of benefits that can be supported.

My amendment 58 pertains to the section on support for starting a business or enterprise, adding “nature restoration” businesses to the types of enterprises that can be supported and thereby supporting rural communities to play a key role in a green economy.

My amendment 59 offers another way of supporting rural communities by giving ministers the power to provide support

“to assist investment in nature-based enterprises in rural areas.”

My amendment 60 improves the description of soil health in relation to supporting activities that protect or improve the soil. By referring to

“the physical, chemical and biological condition of the soil”,

it aims to draw attention to the importance of biological soil health, which is too often overlooked because of a focus on chemical make-up. That will be important in encouraging management practices that limit the use of chemical inputs, which are a significant contributor to climate emissions, and in ensuring that appropriate testing for biological soil health is easily accessible to Scottish farmers.

My amendment 137 would require ministers to engage with and consult communities that would be affected by forestry activities before making regulations on those activities. It is part of a package of amendments that includes amendments 114, 118 and 176, which seek to make changes that stakeholders have suggested in order to expand and strengthen the section on forestry support to ensure that the right trees are planted in the right places.

I am aware that there are requirements for community engagement in the forestry legislation and the related standards and guidance, but those pertain largely to felling and public land, which means that there are gaps with respect to planting and other activities on private land, as well as the farming-forestry interface.

Community engagement and consultation are particularly important when it comes to forestry, as forests are often hugely valued by the local community and are seen as a public amenity to a greater extent than is the case with most agricultural land. I would be interested in hearing the Scottish Government’s response.

I really appreciate that comment. We support nitrogen fixing through natural crops, but the concern is that the use of those crops would be focused on feeding livestock.

As I have said, amendment 149 is about reintroducing species. Management schemes such as the sea eagle management scheme already help farmers to deliver a positive outcome when working alongside other species, but the idea of compensation assumes that reintroductions are inherently negative. This sees nature as a problem, and that cannot be the way forward for sustainable and regenerative agriculture. Instead, we should look to improve and extend species management schemes to ensure that farmers are not out of pocket.

I support Mairi Gougeon’s amendment 8, which clarifies that enterprises that can be supported include

“co-operative societies and similar organisations.”

I would welcome the cabinet secretary’s assurance that food hubs would be included, too, as they are growing in popularity and offer a lifeline to small producers in the form of shared infrastructure and markets.

Finally, I have a query about Rhoda Grant’s amendment 53, which seeks to add both “herbs” and “machinery” to the list of supportable products. I understand that it has been motivated by a desire to support machinery rings, which allow crofters to collaboratively purchase equipment. That approach should, of course, be encouraged, but I am not sure whether the amendment as worded would allow support to be provided for that. It looks as though it would enable support for the production of machinery, and I would appreciate some clarification in that respect.

Yes.

I fully support the intention behind Richard Leonard’s amendment 91, on inspections of agricultural workers’ accommodation. For months, I have been meeting representatives of the Worker Support Centre Scotland and raising with the cabinet secretary its concerns about the exploitation of seasonal workers on large soft fruit farms. One such concern is that the housing attached to those jobs is too often of poor quality, unsafe and unhygienic.

Last year, the centre supported 63 farm workers on housing issues, including holes in caravans, damp, black mould, rodent infestation, broken toilets and windows that would not open. Clearly, that problem needs to be addressed, but, following my discussions with the cabinet secretary, I accept the Scottish Government’s position that the bill that is before us is not the right place to do that. I would appreciate it if the cabinet secretary could set out the other routes that the Government is exploring to address the issue.

My amendments in the group are probing amendments that are intended to open up the conversation about the redistribution of the agriculture support budget, which they have done. An economist turned crofter with whom I have been working calculated that a full half of all farm support payments go to just 6.6 per cent of recipients: those with the most land. My amendments in the group and those from Colin Smyth, Rhoda Grant and Beatrice Wishart in support of redistribution would help to redress that imbalance.

Redistribution would be consistent with land reform objectives to tackle the scale and concentration of land ownership. It would also be consistent with biodiversity objectives, discouraging the consolidation and standardisation of farms with little diversity, and with the desire for a diverse and resilient sector. It would also help to maintain EU alignment, since the new EU cap includes a mandatory redistributive element.

I want to underline the vital importance of achieving those policy intentions, and to impress on the Scottish Government the importance of taking on board the discussion today and the calls from numerous stakeholders for redistribution. I also want to underline that, although the cabinet secretary frequently mentions the small producers pilot, what I hear from those producers is that that pilot is not working and that that funding is not reaching small producers directly. We need to do something to address that.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that Edward Mountain’s amendments 161 and 162 and Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 163, which are about consulting on capping and tapering, are not necessary, as the bill already requires ministers to consult such persons as they consider appropriate.

On Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 159, I do not agree that a definition of payments under tier 1 is needed in the bill, as that is still being determined by the Scottish Government. The bill is a framework bill to provide flexibility for the tiers and to enable payment schemes to evolve over time.

I seek to withdraw amendment 67.

Amendment 67, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 158 not moved.

Amendment 68 moved—[Ariane Burgess].

My amendments in the group relate to redistribution of the agriculture support budget in line with social justice principles. Under the area-based system, the more farmland you have, the more support you get, regardless of what you do with that land or how much food you produce.

Many stakeholders are rightly highlighting the injustice of that system. Committee members might remember the demonstration outside the Scottish Parliament in February that was organised by the Landworkers Alliance, the Scottish Crofting Federation and three other organisations. They do not think that it is right that half of the agriculture budget goes to fewer than 10 per cent of Scottish farms—the largest, wealthiest and most profitable ones—while the small and medium-scale farmers, crofters and growers who produce our food and support nature restoration are struggling to make ends meet. It is not fair for farmers and it is not fair for the Scottish public, who expect public funds to support public goods, not to subsidise already wealthy landowners.

Section 9 gives ministers the powers to cap and/or taper farm support payments. If enacted, that would mean that funding would not increase indefinitely in line with the amount of farmland owned. That recognises that there is social value in limiting the amount of public funds given to the largest, wealthiest farms and in freeing up some of the agriculture budget to redistribute to some smaller or medium-sized farms, crofts or plots.

The current farm payment system already makes use of some minor capping and tapering and it would be seriously regrettable to backtrack on that progressive policy. Amendment 67 changes the power for ministers to enact capping and tapering to a duty to do so.

Amendment 68 would establish a minimum income floor for recipients of agricultural support. That would work well in conjunction with my later amendments on establishing a productive activity assessment as an optional route to qualify for income support, so that we can be sure that public money is supporting public goods. The farmers and crofters who are working hard to provide those public goods should be assured of a liveable income. Surely, that is essential to achieving the Government’s fair work and just transition aspirations. Perhaps it could form the basis of a trial of some kind of universal basic income for all farmers and crofters in Scotland.

Amendments 70 and 71 would give ministers the power to front load farm payments, which would mean that farmers would receive a higher rate for their first number of hectares up to a certain threshold. That would do the most to support small producers, who currently receive very little, if any, of the farmers support budget. Scotland has an income tax and benefits system that redistributes money from the asset-rich to the poor, because our society sees the value in that. Why not do similarly in farming, where just 9 per cent of holdings account for 76 per cent of the land? The Scottish Government has said that it will transform the way that it supports farming and crofting, but the committee’s report quotes the SCF’s submission that,

“after over 20 years of discussion about ‘public funds for public goods’ ... no commitment is made to meaningfully reform the system of area-based payments which, in its present form, mainly favours large landowners.”

That needs to change.

The cabinet secretary assured me that the Scottish Government is exploring the most effective mechanisms for achieving those policy intentions, which might include some combination of capping, tapering and/or front loading, or other mechanisms. I would welcome additional assurance about that.

I support Colin Smyth’s amendment 158, which would limit capping and tapering to tier 1, the most basic level of farming support. That would avoid the imposition of limits on schemes in tiers 2 and 4 that are designed to incentivise improvements for climate and nature and other policy objectives. Capping and tapering tier 1 would free up additional budget for those crucial schemes.

I move amendment 67.