Seòmar agus comataidhean

But we would be bringing forward regulations for parliamentary scrutiny. That is the whole purpose of section 10.

As I hope I have been able to outline, that is why I ask the committee not to support those amendments. I am happy to support amendment 167, from Beatrice Wishart, and to consult on that basis.

With regard to amendment 169, I am glad that I now know the reason behind the lodging of that amendment, because it was quite hard to understand when I initially saw it. I am happy to engage in further dialogue with Edward Mountain in relation to the powers in section 10.

As I have outlined to the committee previously, the code of practice in sustainable and regenerative agriculture is meant to be that guidance and support. It will adapt and change over time. It is meant to be a supportive document for our farmers and crofters. I am trying to outline alternative examples of how its use or application could benefit a farmer or crofter, and I think that that helpfully illustrates how it is intended to be used.

In relation to amendment 155, although guidance might not be mandatory, there are circumstances in which it is helpful to the parties or to the court for them to be able to give due weight to guidance and legal proceedings. That is why section 7(2)(d) has been included in the bill. Current cross-compliance provides an example of that. We have the 13 statutory management requirements, which are based on existing legislation. Cross-compliance operates separately from the criminal process, but criminal proceedings can run in parallel. For example, a claimant who has falsified a cattle passport might be prosecuted by the local authority, as well as having a penalty applied to the support scheme payments. Again, we have set out that information on the relevant websites, which provide clarity to claimants.

By removing section 7(2)(d), amendment 155 would remove the ability to make regulations that would help the courts to act in a way that is fair to everyone. Again, as with the previous amendment, I do not think that that is the intention or what is looking to be achieved, which is why I ask the committee not to support the amendment.

I appreciate what Ariane Burgess has set out regarding her amendments, and I am, of course, happy to meet her to discuss the matter further, as I would be with other members around the table.

We have set out clearly that we need flexibility in the bill, and the amendments would restrict us in that regard. Some of the amendments are unworkable administratively, too, and there would be significant concerns around some of the amendments as they have been drafted. I am more than happy to meet the member to discuss the matter further.

I am sorry, but consultation is mentioned in relation to section 9.

Like amendment 159, amendments 158 and 165 seek to specify the tiered support model in the bill when that would be better done through regulations. Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 165 goes so far as to define tier 1 in the context of an existing support payment. As with amendment 159, I am concerned that that would limit the future flexibility of the framework for which the bill provides. I hope that I have highlighted that it is important for us to retain that flexibility and to future proof the legislation.

That will include potentially capping or tapering future payments and schemes within the tiers when and where the Scottish ministers consider that appropriate. Crucially, that will involve industry and other partners helping to co-develop the right approaches for the new tiered payments, including on capping and tapering. That is why I encourage the committee not to support those amendments.

I turn to Rhoda Grant’s amendment 69. The Government is committed to the principles of fair work and to ensuring that workers in rural Scotland are paid a fair wage for their labour. My amendment 5 puts that principle at the core of the rural support plan and ensures that it will be a central consideration in the provision of that support. Rhoda Grant will be aware from previous discussions on the matter, including last week, that, in drafting the provision, due care and attention have been paid to the Parliament’s present competences in relation to legislating on employment matters. That is why I ask the committee not to support amendment 69.

I turn now to amendments 160 to 163. Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 160 seeks to impose what I think is an arbitrary time window for consulting on this section of the bill, and Edward Mountain’s amendments 161 and 162 prescribe who is to be consulted. I do not think that those amendments are reasonable, and I think that they lose sight of the existing process of co-development that I have talked about. I think that they could cut across that work to the detriment of the support that farmers, crofters and land managers might receive in the future.

I am more than happy to meet Rhoda Grant to discuss the issues further, because, as I said, I completely understand the rationale for amendment 55 being lodged. However, the way that the amendment has been drafted means that it is too restrictive in relation to the types of activity. As I said, I am more than happy to pick up that conversation with her before stage 3.

Amendment 147 seeks to limit the power of the Scottish ministers to provide forestry support under the bill unless an environmental impact assessment has been completed for all woodland creation schemes on land of more than 40 hectares and for smaller schemes on land that would, cumulatively, exceed 40 hectares.

I understand that the amendment is based on a recommendation that was made in a report that was published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Scottish Forestry believes that the recommendation and the thought process that led to it were based on a flawed understanding of how EIA regulations for forestry work. All new Scottish planting schemes that exceed 20 hectares are already subject to screening assessments under the Forestry (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, as are any other projects that are in an environmentally sensitive area, regardless of the size of the project.

Amendment 147 would apply only to grant-funded woodland, which would result in a two-tier system developing in which grant-funded woodland creation would be subject to more onerous administrative and financial requirements than woodland creation that is funded by private investment, which could include community-owned woodland. That could result in a slowdown in woodland creation or, worst of all, a significant downturn in the creation of new woodland, particularly native woodland, and in natural regeneration. It would directly disadvantage Scottish farmers and other land managers, whereas woodland investment that was privately funded would not be disadvantaged. If it were to pass, amendment 147 would significantly increase the bureaucracy and costs related to publicly funded tree planting.

I hope that committee members agree that we do not want those things to happen, particularly at a time when we want to support our Scottish land managers to undertake the right climate change mitigation actions for their needs. That is why I do not support amendment 147. I ask Ariane Burgess not to press her amendment.

I had finished, but I am happy to take a point.

I absolutely support the intent behind what Rachael Hamilton is trying to achieve with her amendment. She talked about measures that the UK Government has introduced, or is looking to introduce, on the back of the Rock review. I highlight that we have already implemented some of those measures in Scotland anyway.

The member touched on—as I have touched on in my previous responses on other amendments, because I recognise the issue—the importance of tenant farmers and the need for them to have the same access to the future framework of support. However, we have introduced measures to address some of the underlying issues in that regard in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is currently undergoing scrutiny by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee under the convenership of Edward Mountain.

Therefore, my only comments in relation to amendment 191 are that, although I absolutely appreciate the intent behind it, any measures relating to tenant farmers would be most appropriately considered, keeping all those measures together, as part of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.

A lot of important points have been raised in the discussion, and I will try to cover as many of them as possible in my comments.

I will start with my amendment 17. It makes clearer the types of criteria that CPD activity providers may be expected to comply with under regulations. Stakeholders have indicated that some CPD providers come into the profession with valuable skills and experience but not necessarily with formal qualifications. Amendment 17 ultimately seeks to recognise the value of those skills and experience, and I hope that it provides reassurance to people who have those skills and experience but who may not necessarily have formal qualifications that ministers will look to those factors when setting out the criteria for the certification of persons who are providing CPD. Accordingly, I ask the committee to support amendment 17.

Turning to amendment 16, we support the inclusion of farm workers, but that amendment is narrower in scope than, and is covered by, amendment 192, in the name of Alasdair Allan. Amendment 192 will ensure that ministers will be able to make a CPD regime that could apply more broadly to persons who work in agriculture, whether or not they are employees. That could include family members and other relations as well as other people. I therefore ask Richard Leonard not to press his amendment 16, and I ask the committee to support Alasdair Allan’s amendment 192.

I will group together most of the other amendments—I realise that there are quite a few in this group. Amendments 193 to 197, 199 and 88 seek, in varying degrees, to put certain requirements of CPD into the bill, which is why I want to try to address them together. First, I want to reassure members that a substantial piece of work is already under way in relation to the future agricultural knowledge and innovation system—AKIS. Indeed, at the request of stakeholders, including farmers and crofters, CPD will form a core part of the new system. Informal consultation has already taken place with a wide range of stakeholder organisations on a future AKIS, including on CPD, which has drawn to our attention many of the matters that members are now seeking to include in the bill.

As I have said previously in relation to other amendments, it is fully my intention to co-design the CPD regime, involving a wide range of stakeholders, to capture and address many of those matters—the formats, the scale and the scope of who might undertake CPD and in what circumstances. We intend to consult on proposals later this year, and the aim is to formally consult on the CPD regulations in 2025.

When it comes to those amendments as a whole, I ask members not to move them, so that we can work together to address some of the issues, recognising, as I said, that some of the amendments are, to varying degrees, quite similar. I appreciate what members want to be captured in the bill, and I very much want to work with them on that.

That leaves two amendments for me to address. First, amendment 198 would have the effect that Scottish ministers could introduce compulsory CPD requirements only if they related

“to relevant health and safety issues”.

I absolutely recognise the importance of health and safety in agriculture, but the effect of amendment 198 is very restrictive. Given the scope and value of learning and development competencies that are of interest to the relevant sectors and are required to deliver the agricultural reform programme’s aims and objectives, I ask the committee not to support amendment 198.

Secondly, in relation to amendment 89, I absolutely recognise the importance of ensuring that CPD requirements are proportionate. As I have outlined, we intend to co-design with industry a CPD regime that is not overly burdensome and, of course, is not unfair to the industry. We have already undertaken an informal consultation, and I have set out our intentions to consult later next year. That will help to ensure that a CPD regime is fair, works for all and adds genuine value. I ask members not to support amendment 89.

I am happy to give an assurance on that.

I will turn to the amendment and what it sets out in relation to the CAP scheme. I understand the requirement for monitoring and evaluation and that, when we are using public money, we need to be able to evidence how it is being used and what is being delivered. However, we have existing reporting requirements for CAP within the rural development regulations, and the bill does not change that. I touched on an example at the committee meeting last week: last month, we commenced the formal ex-post evaluation for the Scottish rural development programme for the entire 2014-20 programming period, as part of the formal closure requirements for the programme. We will continue to report on CAP schemes.

The purpose of the bill is to provide the powers to enable a payment framework that will replace the previous CAP legislation. As I set out in the discussions last week, I think that the rural support plan is the right place for that. Last week, I made a substantial offer on funding, which will cover what currently exists for CAP alongside what we are going to introduce as part of our future framework, too. Therefore, I ask Rachael Hamilton not to press her amendment.

In relation to front loading, I do not think that it is right that we include such commitments in the bill, because we need to have the flexibility to be able to design the new system. If we decide to take that decision after we have done the co-development work, we have the powers to do that. I do not think that it is right for us to embed in the bill a provision that commits us to a particular system or scheme without us having had that conversation. That is still part of the co-development work that is to be undertaken.