Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

You will see what I will do when I come to move the amendments—or not.

As for supporting your definition of soil health and the objectives, I did not think that the bill was the appropriate place to put them. We need to keep the objectives really clear, but the main point is that farmers, crofters and food producers must look at soil biology as we go forward. We need to recognise that soil is a living system and understand its ecosystem, and we must have a way of supporting people through the testing processes. We know about the national test programme, but it must factor in the soil’s biological conditions. I know that many farmers and crofters are already moving towards regenerative practices, but they do not have the support to look at the soil and the impacts of their good practices.

My amendment 62 would give ministers the power to support farmers and crofters to maintain areas of land for nature

“and to prevent further biodiversity loss.”

Given that the conversion of land into farmland is one of the key drivers of biodiversity loss, it is crucial that landowning farmers, crofters and other land managers do not feel financially pressured to convert more land into farmland and that they receive some income for providing public goods by protecting wildlife and habitats, such as our iconic machair, alongside their actively farmed land. That will also be crucial in maintaining EU alignment through the 30 by 30 commitment to protecting 30 per cent of our land for nature by 2030.

There might be some concerns about land being set aside and then neglected, but the land would need to meet certain climate and nature standards as part of the enhanced conditionality of the new payment framework, and I would argue that the support that would be enabled by all my amendments in this group should not be competitive. I also suggest that it be extended to farmers, crofters and other land managers who have already set aside land and provided public goods such as restored and rewetted peatland, to reward them for previous good actions that they paid for out of their own pockets.

My amendment 142 would add a list of benefits that woodlands can provide on farms, to make it clear that planting and maintaining trees on farmland for those purposes would be eligible for support. The purposes outline some advantages of agroforestry or integrated planting, including

“providing shelter to livestock ... reducing flood risk ... reducing soil loss”

and

“reducing risks to wader birds”.

If done without proper sensitivity, tree planting on farmland can be very damaging to waders, including curlews, the UK’s most threatened breeding bird. Therefore, support should incentivise agroforestry to reduce that risk.

I also have two probing amendments in order to continue the conversation about ensuring that the right tree gets planted in the right place. Scotland is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. Native trees can and must play a significant role in realising the Scottish Government’s vision to halt nature loss by 2030, and my amendment 146 would ensure that all woodland that was supported through public funds would have a positive impact on biodiversity as well as on carbon and, where appropriate, on local amenity, too. Existing forestry legislation and guidance on such issues pertain largely to felling and to public land, which leaves gaps with regard to planting and other activities on private land, as well as the farming-forestry interface, as I have mentioned.

Amendment 146 would ensure that public funds deliver public goods and are not spent on forestry projects in a way that will have a negative impact on the environment through soil damage and/or on communities, while amendment 147 would require that any forestry project that was on land of 40 hectares or above or that would

“exceed 40 hectares if adjoined with existing woodland”

could receive support only if an environmental impact assessment had been conducted.

Spruce plantations are notorious for causing the spread of non-native invasive species through self-seeding, damaging native woodlands and high nature value grassland and jeopardising all the progress that has been made on restoring peatland, not to mention the issue of all the money that has been put into that. That is why environmental impact assessments should be a precondition of public funding for forestry projects of such size. For a matter of such importance, it is not enough to rely on guidance being followed. I am aware that there is already a threshold of 20 hectares for forestry on most land types; however, that is only guidance and, should the amendment be agreed to, I will lodge another amendment at stage 3 to change the threshold for support to 28 hectares, to align with the guidance.

I should say that I will not move the forestry amendments today; they are intended to start a conversation in advance of stage 3.

Turning to some of the other amendments in the group, I do not support Tim Eagle’s amendment 141, which seeks to enable the provision of support for “deer and game farming”. The high levels of deer throughout much of Scotland are blocking an effective response to the climate and nature emergencies. We know that deer numbers need to be reduced through culling, and we need more people working in deer stalking, as such roles are not only crucial but are key to rural communities. I would like there to be more support from the rural support budget for deer stalking instead of new support for deer farming. Furthermore, we should be eating the wild venison that is killed by necessity. If we encourage the production of more farmed deer in Scotland, there will be a glut on the market, leading to more food waste.

I worry, too, that support for game farming would largely go to wealthy grouse moor and estate owners, who already benefit the most from area-based farm support systems. The amendment, therefore, seems to run counter to several policy objectives, and I cannot support it.

I also cannot support Tim Eagle’s amendment 143, which seeks to enable support specifically for “foraged crops” to feed livestock. The list of products that can be supported already includes cereals, oilseeds, protein crops and fodder, and I am wary of increasing support for the production of livestock feed when growing food directly for humans uses less land and less energy.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 149 seeks to add “reintroduction of species” to the list of things that farmers can be compensated for if—