Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Not moved, convener.

There is an error in the groupings, convener. The groupings have amendment 157, but the marshalled list has amendment 139.

I will speak initially to my amendment 201, which is a new amendment and seeks to add a definition of “horticulture” as used in part 2 of schedule 1. It states:

“‘horticulture’ means the growing and harvesting of edible horticultural crops, including fruit, vegetables, tubers, mushrooms, herbs, bush and tree nuts and seeds”.

I just wanted to clarify that, because some people interpret horticulture in a narrower way, and I want to ensure that growers producing any of those crops will be eligible for support.

In that light, I cannot support Kate Forbes’s amendment 140, which would allow the production of crops for energy—known, as we have heard, as biofuels—to be supported with agricultural money. If amendment 140 were agreed to, it would lead to double funding for biofuel production and increase the use of prime land for fuel, taking it away from food production. Many of the large farms that grow crops for biofuels already receive an enhanced guaranteed price for the energy produced via Office of Gas and Electricity Markets—or Ofgem—energy supply contracts. Should those same crops also receive basic payment scheme money, meaning that, in effect, already wealthy funded farms receive double funding from taxpayers? Some 11 per cent of Scottish arable land is already being used to grow biofuels. Instead of incentivising more of that, agricultural support should be focusing on food production.

Just yesterday, the UK Government announced a new package of measures in support of domestic food production, notably more support for horticulture—that is, for food—which it said will boost food security. If Kate Forbes’s amendment 140 is accepted, my definition of “horticulture” in amendment 201 will be even more important to ensure support for growing fruit and seeds for food, not only for energy.

My amendments in the group are intended to see whether the cabinet secretary will meet me to work on the significant problems brought on by a payment system that is exclusively based on area of land. We have already discussed the injustice with the principle of the area-based system, which needs reforming through redistribution, but I recognise that the area-based payment system is working smoothly and that many recipients are happy with it. The amendments would not change that.

The amendments are designed to give small-scale farmers, crofters and growers a different route to access and be assessed for direct payments for future tier 1 and tier 2 payments. Under the current system, farmers, crofters and growers on less than three hectares of land are ineligible for basic payments. Even those with more than three hectares but who are still on the smaller end of the spectrum, such as the numerous small producers in the Highlands and the Western Isles, receive negligible amounts of financial support. Others do not bother applying, because the amount that they would receive would not be worth the time and effort spent on the application. However, farmers, crofters and growers are providing public good—food for local markets, jobs and stewardship of the land—and they should be supported. Although the amendments would not remove the area-based payment option, they would add a second option that would throw small producers a lifeline—a route to direct payments at a meaningful level, based on their agricultural activity or labour.

Amendment 74 to section 13 stipulates that regulations must allow the recipients the choice of being assessed for support either on the basis of land area or on the basis of productive agricultural activity.

Amendment 78 would oblige ministers to create criteria for receiving support on the basis of agricultural activity. Eligibility would be based on either

“the amount of hours of activity”,

being the labour, per year, or the standard labour requirements—SLR—for the holding for farms that had already been assessed in that way. In either case, ministers would set a threshold for the amount of labour required on a holding in order to be eligible for direct payments.

Amendment 79 specifies that, when making provision for eligibility criteria in connection with the activity carried out by any recipient, ministers may consider the criteria as set out in my previous amendment or establish a turnover threshold that farms must meet alongside producing a minimum of 10 crops.

Amendment 75 would remove the line on page 7 of the bill that states that ministers may make provisions about

“how the amount of support is to be determined.”

That would be superseded by my amendment 74, which would require regulation to allow recipients to choose how the amount of their support will be determined.

To pre-empt any concerns that my amendments could incentivise overproduction, let me explain why they would not. First, the proposals are different from the old hedge payments. Farms would not receive a unit payment per ewe or per crop; they would receive payments for being a productive farm business. Secondly, activity-based eligibility has been implemented in Austria and it has not led to overproduction there. Instead, the small farms that have chosen that option have tended to diversify and have increased the value of what is produced on farm. For example, pig farms have started to process meat into charcuterie on farm, and other farms have expanded agritourism offerings. That is because the labour-based payments have incentivised them to expand their rural businesses, contributing to thriving rural communities.

Large and medium-sized farms would opt to continue to receive area-based payments, as they would receive more support via that route. They would not be incentivised to overproduce, and both the market conditions and cross-compliance conditions would continue to limit farms from overstocking livestock. The number of people directly employed by farms is now only 61,000, which is about half of what it used to be. Providing an option to link payments to labour would support more jobs on the land, which we desperately need in order to achieve the objectives of the bill.

My next amendments, amendments 170 and 173 to 182, would replace the concept of payment entitlements with those of assessments and allocations throughout the bill. “Entitlements” gives the impression that farms are entitled to receive public money solely for occupying land, and they are not based on any assessment. They also lead to trading entitlements, which is firmly not in the public interest. My series of amendments would modernise that antiquated system and would make it fairer and more accurate.

No, I am not saying that. I am just introducing another option. At the moment, farmers get support through a land-based payment, and I am introducing an activity-based payment. One option is that, if it makes sense for the farmer to go down the route of having people working on farm, that is the way that they would do it, but the other way would remain in place. As I said earlier, it is clear that that is working smoothly for some farmers, but we need to find a way to support very active small producers who receive absolutely nothing at the moment. That is the intention, and that is what I want to explore with the cabinet secretary.

Amendment 182 defines “allocation” as

“the amount of support to be provided”

once an area-based or activity-based assessment

“has been completed.”

Amendments 170 and 174 to 181 simply replace the word “entitlements” with “allocations” in each place.

Amendment 173 would allow for regulations on payment allocations to set a

“minimum labour requirement”

or for an

“assessment and allocation of standard labour requirements”

for those who opt to be assessed by activity.

I would appreciate hearing the Scottish Government’s responses to my amendments, and I would very much like to continue constructive discussions in this area as we move to stage 3. I will therefore not move my amendments at this stage, and I will seek to withdraw amendment 74.

I move amendment 74.

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.