Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hope that the rest of my comments will better answer some of the concerns that you raise. I understand the concerns that have been raised, because we discussed the issue at length in committee. I also understand why the amendments in the group have been lodged. However, I am trying to set out why section 7 is relevant and important.

Amendment 154 shows a misunderstanding of why we might want provisions on compliance with guidance and why that should be taken into account when we determine whether a duty or condition has been met.

In the example of a farmer who had potentially been challenged, a provision of that type might help them to show that what they were doing was lawful or that it met a condition of support. It might help them to show that a particular penalty should not be applied, which would be more likely to ensure fairness than the contrary, as well as helping farmers to manage their businesses with certainty.

Another example is that, under the current schemes, scales of compliance are reflected in cross-compliance. There are currently 32 ways in which a breach of cross-compliance can be assessed that recognise intent, extent, severity, permanence and reoccurrence. Penalties can range from 1 per cent to 100 per cent. Guidance on penalties is currently set out on the rural payments and services website, which provides clarity to claimants.

We could use that power to set out the extent to which compliance with the guidance is relevant in determining whether there is a breach. That would provide greater certainty for farmers who just want to do the right thing. By removing it, amendment 154 would remove the ability to provide that clarity. To be fair, I do not think that that was the intent of the amendment. Therefore, I encourage Tim Eagle not to press the amendment. If he does, I encourage the committee not to support it.

Yes, of course. We have already touched on the good food nation plans and the issues that can be considered in that regard. That is meant to involve a cross-Government approach—we are looking at all the different areas that touch on food policy and giving them further consideration. Again, I think that the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 is the appropriate lens through which to look at the issues that Emma Harper has raised.

Absolutely. The point is that we want to develop it further. It is a pilot at the moment. Ultimately, we want to work with small producers to find the best means of providing support and to discover what support will work best for them.

As I have just outlined, we are at the start of that process. We must take the actions that we learn from the pilot need to be taken and look to develop that fund in future. I am more than happy to continue to engage with the member and the committee, and to provide them with an update on that work as it progresses.

Amendment 68 seeks to create an unspecified minimum level of support that an applicant can receive. I am not able to support amendment 68, because it would create the potential for public support to be gained even if the contribution to outcomes might not merit it.

Amendments 70, 71 and 159 are all variations on the same idea, which call for unspecified levels of front loading to be put into primary legislation. As I have already outlined to the committee, I am committed to supporting small producers according to their needs, and to working with them to develop that support.

Concepts such as front loading and minimum levels of direct support reflect people’s issues and the concerns that they have highlighted with the present and soon-to-be past model of support that we are currently working in. I readily acknowledge that that model has not done enough to support small producers, but, as I outlined to Rhoda Grant, we need the time to develop how best to do that in future as part of our future framework and tiered support. For those reasons, I urge the committee not to support amendments 68, 78, 71 and 159.

On Rhoda Grant’s amendments in this group, section 26 places a duty on the Scottish ministers to prepare and publish a code of practice. As I have already set out, the intention is to give farmers and crofters guidance on a range of ways in which they could voluntarily undertake activity that constitutes sustainable and/or regenerative agriculture. Many activities could be undertaken, because not everything will suit every sector, geography or business.

Rhoda Grant’s amendments would neither enable nor empower farmers and crofters to take up activity that best suits their needs. As we know, regulations are a form of legislation, so requiring them for the code of practice would make the code prescriptive and would limit farmers’ and crofters’ agency and choice. Therefore, I urge committee members not to support amendments 84 to 86.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 186 would require the code to assess the impact of species reintroduction. I suggest that there is no need for the amendment, because that assessment could already be made under section 26(3), which sets out what the code should include. Moreover, lots of different actions and activities should be considered in terms of their impact, and it is not helpful to single that one out and put it in the bill. I am also not clear why the code of practice should cover the reintroduction of species, especially when that is not defined. I therefore ask the committee not to support amendment 186.

Edward Mountain might be in luck, because I am, of course, sympathetic to the intention of amendment 187. Although the amendment’s drafting is technically defective, I am happy to work with him on the drafting of an amendment ahead of stage 3.

I am sorry to say this, given that amendment 188 is Mr Eagle’s final amendment, but, as I have said, section 26 requires the Scottish ministers to consult

“such persons as they consider likely to be interested in or affected by”

the code of practice and to lay it before the Scottish Parliament prior to publishing it, which, in my view, gives Parliament and members sufficient opportunity to input their views on the code before it is finalised. Therefore, I ask members not to support amendment 188.

I appreciate the points that members have made. A wide range of amendments have been put forward in this group, both for and against capping, redistributive action and what has been called front loading. I ask members to consider my comments on each, bearing in mind that section 9 already allows for redistributive payments.

Ariane Burgess’s amendment 67 seeks to make capping mandatory. I think that that should be a matter for the Scottish ministers to consider. The power that we have drafted and set out is a permissive one, and any decision to use it will be based on consultation with those persons the Scottish ministers consider appropriate. Edward Mountain made some points in relation to that, but he has not been part of the other discussions that we have had at previous committee meetings, when I talked about how co-development is foundational to our approach for developing policy. It is critical to remember that.

It is necessary for us to retain overall flexibility to be able to deliver the flexible, future-proof legislation that we will need if we are to deliver our vision for agriculture. It must work for us today, but we must ensure that we have legislation that will work in the future. For that reason, I ask the committee not to support amendment 67.

Amendments 68, 70, 71 and 159 all seek to address matters related to our smaller producers. I have already made clear our commitment to ensuring that smaller producers continue to thrive, and I am happy to reiterate that commitment again today. If anything, we want there to be more small producers.

Our small producer pilot, which I have previously mentioned to the committee, is just a start on that journey, as we seek to ensure that we listen to small producers and co-develop support that will work for them. Given their unique contribution to rural Scotland, we want to ensure that small producers are not considered only as an add-on to a generalist support model.

We are taking forward work on the good food nation plan, and I know that the committee will have a role in scrutinising that. The consultation on the plan closed last month. We were keen to engage widely, and we hope that what we have set out in the plan will achieve our overall objectives and our vision for a good food nation. I am happy to continue to engage with Rhoda Grant and other members around the table with an interest in the matter. I want to ensure that the good food nation plan is as strong as possible, and I recognise that it will, of course, evolve over time.

Elena Whitham’s amendment 22 seeks to provide for animal health and welfare to be included in the objectives, and Colin Smyth’s amendment 3 seeks to provide for animal welfare to be included. That emphasises a strand that runs from Scotland’s long-established history of having good-quality livestock to our recent agricultural vision, and that strand will continue into the code for sustainable and regenerative agriculture. At stage 1, we heard a lot from stakeholders about how important that is and that we should state that as an objective of agricultural policy in Scotland. I think that Elena Whitham’s amendment 22 is preferable to Colin Smyth’s amendment 3, so I ask the committee to reject amendment 3 and accept amendment 22.

I agree whole-heartedly with the intention behind Ariane Burgess’s amendment 23. I want to include in the new tier framework schemes that will help us to deliver that intention in a way that is consistent with the high-level objectives in section 1. However, the amendment relates to a specific aim rather than a high-level objective, so it would be inappropriate to include in the bill what is proposed in the amendment. Moreover, enabling what I have set out could, arguably, be a key way of delivering objective 4, which is

“enabling rural communities to thrive.”

I hope that that reassures Ariane Burgess and that she will not move amendment 23. However, if she does, I ask the committee not to support it.

Ariane Burgess has also lodged amendments 24 and 25. Section 1 of the bill sets out the key objectives for agricultural policy, and the third objective refers specifically to “on-farm” support. I am not sure where agricultural policy and those objectives would be delivered other than on farms. The objectives seek to intrinsically link agricultural policy and food production, with there also being the need for

“on-farm nature restoration, climate mitigation and adaptation”.

The bill does enable a much wider range of support, but section 1 is focused on agriculture and is not the place for any wider objectives. It should be remembered that the bill is primarily to support agricultural producers who then might wish to take up climate and nature measures. Widening the bill’s scope by removing the term “on-farm” risks dilution of support for farmers and does not recognise that other support is available outwith agricultural support. For example, we have the nature restoration fund. I therefore ask the committee to reject amendment 24.

On amendment 25, the bill already includes powers that enable farmers, crofters and land managers to collaborate between farms and at landscape scale if they wish to do. That includes funding for third-party support to deliver grants and support to enable such collaborations to occur. I therefore ask the committee not to support amendment 25.

Colin Smyth’s amendments 98, 99, 100, 104 and 105 remove the current objective for nature restoration and climate and replace it with a range of new separate objectives, as well as additional detail. Much consideration has gone into ensuring that the wording in the bill and in the objectives reflects terms with common meaning that can be articulated to the vision. The four objectives are not listed in order of priority, but it is important to note that, by their very nature, they are high-level and wide-ranging and are aimed at supporting the others. On-farm nature restoration, climate mitigation and adaptation are clearly covered by the current objectives, so I struggle to see what value there would be in separating them into individual objectives, as has been proposed by Colin Smyth’s amendments 98, 99 and 100.

His amendments 100 and 105 propose inserting the term “natural heritage”. I want to be clear that enhancing our nation’s natural heritage is something that we all subscribe to, but that term has contested understandings and using it might narrow the scope of intent of the existing objective. On-farm nature restoration is already suitably and clearly covered by the objectives in the bill as it is drafted, so I struggle to see what replacing it with a specific nature objective would achieve.

Amendment 104 seeks to reintroduce an objective on climate mitigation and adaptation. Those are already suitably and clearly covered by the objectives in the bill and we are already bound by the requirements of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, so I struggle to see what value that amendment offers. For those reasons, I ask the committee not to support that group of amendments.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 101 looks to alter the text of the objective in section 1(d):

“enabling rural communities to thrive.”

The amendment proposes adding reference to farmers as part of that objective. The amendment reflects the vital importance of farmers to our rural communities and I fully recognise the key role that farmers play in supporting the socioeconomic vitality of rural areas. However, farmers are an integral part of our rural communities and I do not think that they should be viewed as separate to that and to the communities where they live and work. That is why I think that Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 101 is unnecessary and I ask the committee not to support it.

During stage 1, I signalled the importance of monitoring and evaluating the contribution that support might make towards the delivery of our objectives and the meeting of our statutory duties. However, I suggest that the rural support plan would be the appropriate place for us to do that, as the full framework of support that would be enabled by the bill can be considered together rather than through a separate set of regulations, which amendment 109 calls for.

We should also be wary of requiring targets to be established when the legal effects of them are unclear and the duty to achieve them is unqualified. As we will all be aware, targets are very easy to set and are much more challenging to deliver in practice, especially when it is largely down to the efforts of a wide range of third parties to meet them. In the next group of amendments, which is on the contents and scrutiny of the rural support plan, I will set out my intention to come back to the Parliament at stage 3 with a more suitable framing of the planned requirements to cover a wide range of the issues that were raised at stage 1, as well as issues that have been raised by stakeholders, including on the monitoring and evaluation process. In my view, that approach would more effectively deliver on the intent that I believe is behind amendment 109. Therefore, I ask Colin Smyth not to press his amendment. If he does, I ask the committee not to support it.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 110 amends section 20 of the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 to require the Scottish food commission to

“keep under review progress in achieving the objective in section(1)(b)”

of the bill. Section (1)(b), on the overarching objectives of agricultural policy, says:

“For or the purposes of this Act, the objectives of agricultural policy are the production of high quality food”.

The 2022 act contains provisions to establish a new Scottish food commission to provide the oversight for the delivery of the provisions in the act. The Scottish food commission will be an executive non-departmental public body and its purpose will be to provide oversight of the good food nation plans, as required by the 2022 act. Expanding that purpose to include oversight for legislation, including the bill that we are considering, is not useful and it may prevent the commission from effectively exercising its existing functions. It is vital that the commission is allowed to focus on ensuring the delivery and implementation of the good food nation plans by Scottish ministers, local authorities and health boards. For that reason, I urge members not to support amendment 110.

On amendment 111, when public expenditure is involved and is being provided to help to deliver a wide range of objectives, it is right that regular progress is reported on. However, the expectation that review periods are set to arbitrary timescales that might not be reflective of the timetable for the support that is in place is not right. There is a distinct risk that Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 111 would require there to be reporting on such a frequent basis that it would become hugely costly and burdensome and that that would get in the way of delivery, which I do not think would be in anyone’s interests. We need to provide for appropriate monitoring and evaluation. As I have outlined, I believe that the rural support plan is the right place for that activity to be undertaken. I will set out what that might look like in the debate on the next group of amendments. Accordingly, I hope that Rachael Hamilton will not move amendment 111, and I urge the committee not to support it if she does.

I hope that you will allow me to finish my comments, because it is important that I set out what I am looking to achieve and what we hope to gain from that. I am happy to follow up with you separately. That is not normally how the process for engaging on amendments that we would lodge as a result of the discussions that we have had at stage 2 is handled. I hope that you will allow me to set out fully and clearly what we are planning to do, because that sets us on the path of a constructive way forward.

What is key and what we cannot forget is the regulations and what the bill provides us with the powers to do. When it comes to developing future schemes, that co-development process is hugely important and it is the foundation of our approach, as I have outlined. The committee will, of course, have a scrutiny role over all of that as we bring forward that further detail. As I have already outlined, the rural support plan is really there to set out our strategic priorities and it builds on what we have already set out through our vision for agriculture and the route map.

I know that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee asked us to provide a draft or an outline of the rural support plan prior to stage 3, so I am happy to commit to doing that. I can provide an outline of what it might look like. However, as I have outlined in relation to the first version of the plan, it will be a living document and it will be iterative, given the phase and the period of transition that we are in.

I will return to my comments, if I can. I hope that members will allow me to finish them, because what I will set out goes a long way towards addressing the concerns that have been expressed.

We intend for the rural support plan to include the role that the four support tiers, as per the policy memorandum, will play in contributing to the delivery of the bill objectives in section 1. The tiers do not exist in isolation and it is intended that they will operate as part of a coherent programme approach to future support, as outlined in our route map.

In our climate change action policy package, which was announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Net Zero and Energy, Màiri McAllan, we stated that tier 2 will be important for delivering outcomes of climate and nature. We will ensure that we better articulate the role of each tier of the overall framework in driving actions to meet the bill’s objectives. It will also include greater detail on the support that will be provided, including scheme descriptions, expected outcomes, anticipated uptake and indicative budgets. That is not an exhaustive list. Some of the detail that is asked for is already in place for current EU CAP schemes and is published, but I understand that bringing all of that together in one place will provide greater transparency and understanding of the breadth of our programme of support. I will explore what more we can provide on that.

There have been a lot of asks about budgets and providing more clarity in the longer term, but unfortunately there is no getting around the fact that we are still in a position of having no UK Government budget guarantees from 2025. That has clear implications for our ability to plan agricultural support. I have already set out that funding for tiers 1 and 2 will constitute at least 70 per cent of the overall funding envelope and that a further announcement about the proportion of funding between tiers 1 and 2 will be made in June this year. I commit to seeing what additional clarity could be provided, even if any figures would only be indicative.

The contribution of our overall agricultural reform programme in meeting statutory duties relating to agriculture, the environment, biodiversity and land will be considered, too. We have already set out our climate change action policy package and the changes that we are making, so I will not reiterate those, but it is important that we clearly outline and articulate what our programme is doing to help agriculture meet emissions reduction targets.

Further details of the agricultural reform programme co-development process include what we engage on, where we engage, who we engage with, how we engage and the expected outputs that will feed into our route map. That will provide important clarity on the engagement and consultation that already exist and where the rural support plan sits in that process.

The indicative programme of secondary legislation that will follow the bill and deliver on the route map will be considered, too. I have already outlined changes from 2025, which have been scheduled into the legislative timetable for later this year. I will investigate what further advance notice can usefully and accurately be provided on the existing timeline and the quantity of secondary legislation that will follow the bill, subject to parliamentary timetables and decision making.

Further information will be given, too, on the role of rural support plans and the process of creating, amending and reporting on them. Under the CAP, a lot of work was done in developing the Scottish rural development programme as it currently exists, and we followed a set process for amending and reporting on the programme. A lot of that work went unseen and continues as we conclude the formal process of closing the EU 2014-20 programme this year. I want to learn the lessons from that—on what has and has not worked well—to help us inform the development of a rural support plan that meets our needs now and in the future, and how best to manage the new framework and its schemes in the future.

How and when we will monitor, evaluate and report on our support, including through a future monitoring and evaluation framework, will be included, too. Again, considerable reporting work is taking place on the EU SRDP and, last month, we commenced the formal ex-post evaluation for the entire 2014-20 programming period. What we spend and how we spend it on future support needs to be effectively monitored and evaluated. Substantial amounts of public funding are given to our farmers, crofters and land managers, and it is only right that we seek a meaningful return on that investment of public money and that progress can be charted in delivering on the bill’s objectives, outcomes and statutory duties.

I hope that the various points that I have outlined help to alleviate some of the concerns around the rural support plan sections as drafted and around the absence of explicit mention of monitoring and evaluation. I ask that, when considering the amendments, we do so on the basis of what I have outlined and that we take those issues away to collaboratively come back at stage 3 with a robust wraparound offer that involves amendments to the current provisions on the rural support plan.

I will turn to some of the specific amendments. Amendments 28, 29, 33, 34, 36, 39 and 41 require the Scottish ministers to prepare a plan by regulations. The purpose appears to be to ensure that each iteration of the plan is subject to prior approval by Parliament. I believe that that is too restrictive, because although Parliament must—and, of course, will—have its due place and, in particular, will be able to scrutinise all the secondary legislation that we need to put in place to support and deliver the plans, the Government also needs to be able to get on and develop and manage support for our farmers and communities, which means working with stakeholders and experts for that purpose.

We could not focus on the task at hand if Parliament had an on-going veto on the plans and proposals that we describe in successive plans and even, potentially, on quite modest changes. That would, for example, divert some of the finite resource that we have away from the co-development of future policy with industry and partners. The bill already sets clear requirements for the content, scrutiny and considerations of a plan, including that it is laid before Parliament. I have committed to returning to those issues with more explicit clarity at stage 3.

The actual detail of changes, including new schemes in the different tiers, will be provided for in secondary legislation using the proposed powers of the bill. That will provide parliamentary scrutiny, as I said, and it will also involve further consultation and the associated impact assessments. Parliament will also be able to scrutinise the plan at portfolio evidence sessions, during the budget process and through the various matters that are set out in section 3.

For those reasons, I consider that the existing levels of scrutiny, through a wide range of regulatory powers and responsibilities relating to different sections in the bill that relate to the rural support plan, are sufficient. Therefore, I hope that Colin Smyth agrees to withdraw or not move his amendments. If he does so, I urge members not to support them.

I understand the intent behind Colin Smyth’s amendment 112, but I do not believe that it is necessary. It is worth noting that there is already provision in that regard in the bill, which requires that a rural support plan

“sets out strategic priorities for providing support”

and

“a description of each support scheme”.

Section 3(2)(a) sets out that ministers “must have regard” to objectives that are

“set out in section 1”.

As I have set out, I intend to return at stage 3 with a much more explicit framing for the rural support plan and will consider how the plan might cover the proposals in Colin Smyth’s amendment 112. For those reasons, I believe that the amendment is not needed. I hope that Colin Smyth agrees and will not move it.

In relation to amendments 30 and 31, as I have outlined, I would love to be in a position to legislate to provide for a multi-annual financial framework in the bill. We had that certainty and clarity under the CAP, with the EU’s multi-annual financial framework but, unfortunately, the reality is that Westminster has not given any commitment on future funding or on what basis that might be provided. Currently, UK Government allocations are on an annual basis. There are no funding guarantees from 2025, and the current UK Government has refused to engage on the issue.

First of all, I disagree with your point about throwing a grenade at amendments. As I outlined in my comments, I think that there are lots of helpful things in these amendments, but there are contradictory points, too. Just as there are, as I have said, different consultation requirements to consider, there are different things to consider in various parts of the bill, and it is only right that we are able to look at all of this holistically and that we are not looking at amendments in a piecemeal way. I hope that, in everything that I have outlined with regard to all the areas that we want to look at and reconsider for stage 3, what I have said addresses some of the concerns that have been expressed.

On amendment 126, I would, as I noted in my response to amendments 28 and 29, point out that the Parliament’s committees have the essential role that has been referred to. I urge members not to support amendment 126 on that basis.

On amendment 127, I would just say that, as with Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 125, the amendments requiring consultation on the rural support plan provide no proportionality with regard to scale, which, again, could be routine. Accordingly, I ask Rachael Hamilton not to move amendment 127.

Amendment 128 seeks to define the rationale that Colin Smyth’s amendment 115 asks for in providing greater detail about schemes. Again, I welcome the positive intent behind the amendment, but I must ask members to resist it so that I can return at stage 3 with—as I have repeated many times—a more realistic and workable wraparound that sets out how ministers will provide details in the plan. I therefore ask the member not to move the amendment. If he does, I urge members not to support it.

Finally, on amendment 129, I hope that Colin Smyth will be reassured to know that it is always my intention to act in a manner that we

“consider best contributes to achieving the objectives”.

In fact, that is what I am seeking to do right now in relation to Scottish agriculture. Although I welcome the positive intent behind the amendment, I note that it takes out the current duties in the bill to prepare a plan and for ministers to exercise their functions while having regard to that plan. I am sure that that was not the intention behind the amendment. I therefore ask Colin Smyth not to move amendment 129. If he does, I urge committee members not to support it.