Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mark, I am sorry. It is up to Mr Golden whether he wants to take an intervention.

Very sadly, I will call a halt there, just as we were going to talk about littering from vehicles and civil penalties. I was about to get my moment in the sun. That will be something to look forward to next week.

I thank members and particularly the minister for our five hours of debate. It has been a marathon session. I think that the only person to mangle any of their speeches was me, when I mentioned people’s names. I apologise again for that.

Next week, we will start at 8.45 with a pre-brief for committee members. We will start the meeting and continue our discussion of stage 2 amendments at 9 o’clock. Once we finish that, we will have an evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy and we will consider our annual report.

I remind members of the important Scottish Parliament information centre seminar tomorrow morning, where the Climate Change Committee will lead a discussion on carbon budgeting. I am sure that everyone will find that interesting.

In my time in agriculture, I have learned that the best thing to do is to sit down and talk to your neighbour and listen to what advice they have to give you on what you are doing on the farm. That can include simple things about getting an easy calving, which could be a question of putting more iodine into the mineral mix to ensure that the calf is born quickly and that the cow cleanses. That is information that you can pick up from your neighbour, from their personal experience. My amendment 196 therefore specifies

“formal and informal CPD activities, including peer-to-peer learning”.

The Government sponsored peer-to-peer learning in the past, with suckler-cow groups and arable groups. Those were sensible ideas, and those groups got farmers together. There was good reason for doing that, apart from just learning. It meant that we all talked and understood our problems, and it addressed the issues of mental health that can occur on farms at difficult times.

Amendment 196 is a very simple amendment, and I am sure that it is the one that the cabinet secretary said she was going to support, because informal learning is important.

I understand the reason that Alasdair Allan has lodged amendment 192, which seeks to extend CPD out just beyond the farming family.

I have a problem with some of Mr Leonard’s comments about apprenticeships. I agree that farmers would love to have apprenticeships, but how the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board is set up specifically excludes apprenticeships, on the basis that apprentices must be paid the same wage as a normal farm worker. However, they cannot do the same job. For example, an apprentice aged 16 cannot drive a large tractor unless they have passed a tractor test, they cannot operate the handler, they cannot drive other machinery and they are precluded from doing other things. There is a real problem there, which I would be delighted to discuss with Mr Leonard, because I, too, want to see more apprenticeships on farms, but the legislation is against it.

I could go on and on, but I am hopeful that the cabinet secretary will be mindful of the importance of peer-to-peer learning, rather than direct top-down learning, as I do not think that it would be helpful for politicians to tell farmers how to do their job better.

Before I say anything, I remind members of my declaration of interests, about which I will be entirely clear. I have 140 pedigree suckler cows that produce top-quality beef in Scotland. I grow grain that is used for the production of whisky and feed, and I grow vegetables under contract. I employ three people, who are fully involved, one of whom lives on the farm with his family. I generate and pay tax in Scotland and the single farm payment that I receive covers less than 15 per cent of the annual outgoings for the farm. I hope that that is clear and that there is no dubiety about where I come from.

Regarding the previous amendments in this group, one must be really careful when capping things, for the simple reason that capping a payment may prevent large-scale activity taking place. I do not believe that payments should be based on the size of a holding. Payment should be based on the activity taking place in a holding. If that activity is in the public interest, it is good and should be rewarded, and capping it would, therefore, be bad.

My amendments 161 and 162 are about ensuring that the Government talks to people before it considers capping things. Amendment 161 asks that

“persons in receipt of support or relevant assistance”

that could be capped be consulted before that capping takes place. That seems logical, otherwise we will revert to the situation that we had in 2016, when the Pack review came about and Richard Lochhead capped payments. Farmers did not know that that was coming until just before it happened and they had already made commitments. I am therefore keen for people to be consulted in advance.

I am also keen for the Government to pay particular attention to the committees within this Parliament. I am a committee convener, so you would be surprised if I did not say that. I believe that, before it sets about capping, the Government should also ask the committee who should be consulted. That seems logical to me.

Amendment 162 inserts the word “other” after “such” to ensure that any consultation regarding capping is carried out as widely as possible. The Government may try to reject that proposal, but it would just mean that it would have to talk to more people, which is surely what politics is about and must be a good thing.

I look forward to hearing that the cabinet secretary agrees with me and I do not intend to speak to the other amendments in the group.

I speak to amendment 183 with some trepidation, because the last time that I questioned the Government on enforcement and regulation, I received—surprisingly—a whole farm inspection and a 100 per cent cattle inspection within three months of doing so. I am sure that there was no connection, but we will see whether the same thing happens this time.

I am glad to say that I did not fall foul of the system, but there is genuine fear among farmers when it comes to enforcement and the way in which it is carried out. I have particular concerns about certain provisions in section 16, particularly section 16(2)(i), which relates to monetary penalties. The problem with the European Union with regard to single farm payments was that, if we made a minor error, we got a monstrous fine. For too long in my professional life, when filling out single farm payment claims for clients, I noticed that the Government itself had made mistakes, for which there were no fines and as a result of which farmers were adversely affected.

Amendment 183 seeks to test the water, as it were—or the Government—by proposing that appeals be made within three months. I am trying to see whether the Government agrees that it is reasonable for a farmer to appeal within three months, and if it accepts the amendment, whether it accepts that that appeal must be determined within three months, too. After all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I will be moving and pressing amendment 183, but I want to discuss the whole section with the cabinet secretary, as I have grave concerns that it will be very inequitable to people who inadvertently make a mistake when filling in a claim. There is just no flexibility in the system.

I move amendment 183.

A constituent has written to me to say that they appealed something and have been waiting for a determination for five years. Surely that cannot be equitable—it must be equitable to sort that out much quicker. After all, people’s lives and businesses are on the line if their appeals are not heard on a reasonable timescale. Do you not think that my amendment proposes a fair way of doing that?

When I spoke to the cabinet secretary yesterday, she said that she was going to support some of my amendments. We are four down with two to go, so I hope that my amendment 187 will be one of those that she supports.

Amendment 187 suggests that, 180 days after royal assent, a draft code should be published. At that stage, we will all understand what sustainable and regenerative agriculture is. I have been farming for 40 years but I struggle to understand the definition of it. If you look closely into the matter, you find that sustainable and regenerative agriculture seeks to

“rebuild the biological and chemical processes that may have existed at one point but have diminished over time”.

I am not sure whether those time periods are BC or AD, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 300 years ago, last week or last month. That is why I think that farmers need a clear explanation of what sustainable and regenerative agriculture is. However hard I have looked and however hard I have listened, I cannot define it. I would say that most farmers are engaged in sustainable and regenerative agriculture, but it would be extremely beneficial for the Government to confirm that that is the case by explaining what it is within 180 days of royal assent.

My amendment 169 is a probing amendment, because I want to see where the cabinet secretary is going with the power in section 10. It seems to be a fairly draconian power, as it will give the Government the absolute right, without any right of appeal or ability for the person involved to speak to the Government, to withdraw all payments—and, in fact, to reclaim payments.

In the past, with regard to reclaiming payments, the Government has, interestingly, been draconian by demanding all the money back at very short notice or by refusing support on the basis of rules that some people did not understand. However, when the Government makes a mistake, it is, of course, not held accountable at all.

The aim of my amendment is to get an undertaking from the cabinet secretary that she will meet me to discuss section 10 and see whether there is a way that we can build in a right of appeal, so that anyone who has that draconian power used against them can speak to the Government without the impenetrable barriers that people sometimes meet in the rural payments department.

I propose not to move the amendment if the cabinet secretary gives me that undertaking. If she does not, I will move it and we will see where we go.

I will not be any more verbose than I have been already, convener, so I will just press amendment 183.

I am not sure how amendment 161 cuts across that work. It applies to people “in receipt of support”. If co-development is being pursued, surely they would be consulted anyway. I do not quite follow your logic. Could you explain that to me, please?