Seòmar agus comataidhean

Is it not amendment 157, convener?

All the amendments in the group are in my name, so I will try to rattle through them.

The group is about clarification. I do not quite understand where we are between guidance and statutory or legal duties.

Amendment 151 would clarify the guidance referred to in section 7, which is confusing on how the code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture could be used. The mention of the code in that context should be removed.

Amendments 152 and 153 seek to change the bill to ensure that guidance on a particular scheme or purpose is laid before the Scottish Parliament and published. The bill allows for one or the other. If the committee agrees to amendment 152, it will need to consider amendment 153, as the phrase “(or both)” at the end of section 7(2)(a) will no longer be required.

Amendments 154 and 155 would ensure that guidance that is produced under section 7 remains as guidance or advice rather than stringent regulation that must be complied with. The section states that provision will be made that specifies

“the extent to which compliance with guidance on a particular topic”

relates to

“a statutory duty or condition of support”,

as well as

“the admissibility or evidential value of the guidance in legal proceedings.”

Therefore, the removal of sections 7(2)(c) and 7(2)(d) would assure farmers and crofters that guidance will remain just that, rather than a statutory or regulatory prism.

Apologies, convener—I forgot to make a declaration of interests at the beginning of the meeting. I am still new, so I am not sure whether I should have done so. I refer members back to what I said last week, when I declared an interest as a small farmer.

Amendment 141 is an attempt to get a few slight changes into the bill in order to clarify some points for farmers. It seeks to include the farming of deer and game in the bill’s definition of agriculture in order to support deer and game farmers in continuing to produce those products. Such farming contributes to the overall production of high-quality food as any other form of livestock farming does; indeed, at a recent event, we had venison on the table. It would not be logical to specifically exclude that type of farming, when the farming of other animals would qualify for support under section 4 of the bill. I add, for the avoidance of any confusion, that amendment 141 relates only to farmed livestock and does not make provision to support the taking of wild game.

Amendment 143 would include

“cereals and oilseeds, peas and beans”

and

“other foraged crops”

in the bill’s definition of “agriculture” and, by doing so, would support farmers in continuing to produce those products. As with amendment 141, those are important categories that are, at present, missing from the bill, and they should be included so that we can recognise their contribution to Scottish agriculture and make the list more comprehensive.

Amendment 148 aims to highlight one of the key challenges that I know farmers and land managers across Scotland face. Access to land and the right to roam are privileges that we all enjoy in Scotland; however, with that right comes a responsibility to ensure that we respect the land that we are accessing, and my amendment would add the word “responsible” to the provisions on supporting access to land, just to clarify that all access to land should be carried out responsibly.

Farmers and land managers are constantly dealing with cases of irresponsible use of land that cost them time and money and which in some cases can lead to harm to livestock. Examples can range from leaving a field gate open or littering along a footpath, to livestock worrying and fly-tipping, and the inclusion of the word “responsible” in the legislation would underline our commitment to tackling such behaviour and encouraging greater accountability among those who access farmland for any purpose.

Amendment 149 would enable compensation to be provided to farmers in respect of additional costs incurred and income lost as a consequence of reintroduced species. The amendment aims to recognise the challenges that reintroduced species have thrown up for the agricultural sector and provides an opportunity to mitigate them without directly impacting our efforts to successfully re-establish certain species in Scotland. It would support Scotland’s farmers, provide them with reassurance that the impact of reintroduced species on their ability to produce food is being properly assessed and help to alleviate wider industry concerns that the impact of reintroduced species is not being given adequate consideration in policy making.

I understand that the prevention of significant agricultural damage is already covered in previous agricultural legislation. However, amendment 149 has been written in conjunction with farmers who have a more developed understanding of the impact of reintroduced species on farming activities. Farmers have made it clear that they want to see those provisions on the face of the bill, and I am absolutely committed to ensuring that their views are heard in today’s proceedings.

It was not my intention to cause added confusion. Picking up on Rachael Hamilton’s points, my purpose in bringing that up was to make sure that the guidance really is guidance, rather than statutory provisions. I say that because my experience is that many farmers were worried in the past about environmental schemes such as AECS—the agri-environment climate scheme—whereby the regulations were such that they prohibited them from accessing the scheme for fear that something was going to go wrong. It was about making sure that we support farmers. I understand what the cabinet secretary is saying and I will not press amendment 151, but I would like to move amendments 152 and 153.

Amendment 151, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 152 and 153 moved—[Tim Eagle]—and agreed to.

Amendments 154 and 155 not moved.

Amendment 156 moved—[Beatrice Wishart].

Amendment 139 picks up on the concerns that were highlighted by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee at stage 1. That committee said:

“The Committee notes that it is being asked to consider this power in absence of the rural support plan which is to contain information about the expected use of the powers conferred by this provision. In light of the absence of detail, and the fact that this power is a Henry VIII power, the Committee recommends that this power should be subject to the affirmative procedure.”

Amendment 139 therefore seeks to ensure that any regulations that are made under section 4 are subject to the affirmative procedure, to reflect that such regulations would modify primary legislation.

Similarly, amendment 168 seeks to strengthen the parliamentary process for section 10, moving it from the negative to the affirmative procedure, as does amendment 172 for section 13, which is on regulations about support and gives the Scottish Government the power to make regulations on administrative matters, eligibility and the enforcement of support for a particular purpose. At stage 1, concerns were raised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and stakeholders that section 13 would vary between the negative and the affirmative procedure. Amendment 172 proposes to move all regulations to the affirmative procedure.

On all of that, given that the overall package of support could be several billions of pounds and we do not have the detail, there needs to be enhanced parliamentary scrutiny.

I accept what the cabinet secretary said about review and consultation, so I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 124 not moved.

Amendment 36 moved—[Colin Smyth].

Good morning. It is great to be a part of the committee. I am not sure if I need to, but I declare an interest as I am a farmer and I have worked in the agriculture sector.

Amendments 123 and 124 both refer to the rural support plan, which, as other members have said this morning, is a critical part of the practical application of the bill and is important with regard to what farmers and landowners will do moving forward.

Amendment 123 would require delivery of the rural support plan within three months of royal assent. With that amendment, I am trying to get the rural support plan out as quickly as possible, because the plan is that we will be moving into the next stage in 2026, which is not far off.

Amendment 124 is about how we manage the change between rural support plans. The bill specifies a period of six months, but the problem with that is that six months is not a long time in the rural sector. It should be changed to 12 months, which would give farmers and land managers the greatest ability to respond to the new rural support plan.

Up until about a month ago, I did not know what the register of inhibitions was. I do now, and we have been having quite the debate on whether that is the correct place to give notice of the appointment of judicial factors. Various people who have been in front of us have debated that issue. Most would probably agree that that is not 100 per cent the right place, but there was concern about the cost of setting up a completely new location for that information. There was also concern about the public’s ability to search the register of inhibitions. Having listened to that evidence, do you have any thoughts on whether the register is the right place to put that information?

I clarify that the concern with the register of inhibitions is that it is not easily searchable by members of the public. However, you are content that that is the most cost-effective way of recording the appointment of judicial factors and that support is in place such that a member of the public will be able to search the register if they want to do so.