Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I appreciate the argument that Edward Mountain has set out and that the powers in sections 13 and 16 and what results from them will be of great significance to our farmers and crofters. However, I must ask the committee not to support amendment 183, because, although I agree with Edward Mountain that, in some cases, a three-month timeframe is appropriate, I do not think it fair to restrict ourselves in that way. It might be appropriate to have longer periods for appeals and their determination. I therefore think that we need flexibility, as I set out earlier.

I appreciate the point that Edward Mountain has raised and how important it is. If he has particular cases, he should write to me about them so that we can look into them. We want to make sure that we have an appropriate appeals process in place. That will be subject to the regulations that we introduce, but we must ensure that we have the flexibility to set an appropriate period. That is why I ask the committee not to support amendment 183.

I will start with amendment 134. As Rachael Hamilton knows, and as we touched on in the discussion last week, I would love to be in a position in which we could set a multiyear budget, as we were able to do under the common agricultural policy when we were in the European Union. Ultimately, such an arrangement provides us all—especially our farmers and crofters—with clarity and certainty.

However, the UK Government has failed to meet its promise to engage in meaningful discussion with us and the other devolved Governments on the future of agriculture spending. I must be clear with everyone that that means that, after next year, we have no certainty that there will be any funding at all in the future, which, of course, is not acceptable. While that remains the case, it is not reasonable to accept amendment 134, and I urge the committee not to support it.

Sorry, convener—I was too keen to respond.

I appreciate the points that Rachael Hamilton has made, but I do not see those two things—what I have said and what officials have set out previously—as contradictory. Officials talked previously about “the basic standards”, but our basic standards are high standards, so I do not think that those two things are in conflict.

I would not agree to the amendment, because I think that it is important for us not to be prescriptive around the definition. As Rachael Hamilton touched on, there was conflicting advice on that in committee, too, and I know that other stakeholders opposed having a firm and fixed definition. That is why I encourage the committee not to support amendment 204.

Richard Leonard’s amendment 91 seeks to fill a perceived gap in the duty of agricultural wages inspectors, and it crosses over into local authority duties to inspect accommodation to determine whether it meets the tolerable standard.

When dealing with routine or complaint inspections, agricultural wages enforcement teams already report to local authorities any concerns that employees raise with them on the condition of their accommodation. That is procedural practice and it allows the appropriate authority to deal with housing issues. I therefore do not consider amendment 91 to be necessary. I also do not think that we would want to bring housing matters into the bill, which is fundamentally about providing support for agricultural and rural communities.

That said, I absolutely recognise that we need to do what we can to ensure that everyone who lives and works in Scotland, including those who work in agriculture, has access to appropriate housing. I believe that that would be best done through our wider commitment to address the overall condition of housing in Scotland.

The Scottish Government’s aim, as it is set out in our housing to 2040 strategy, is to introduce new cross-tenure housing standards, which will be set in law. The new standards will cover all homes, whether they are new or existing homes, including agricultural properties, mobile homes and tied accommodation. We want to ensure that there are no margins of tolerance, no exemptions and no substandard homes in urban, rural or island communities, in deprived communities or in tenements. By doing so, we will have consistency across all housing tenures and help people in Scotland to have access to high-quality homes that meet their needs.

Although I fully appreciate the intent behind amendment 91, I do not believe that the bill is the appropriate place for it. That is why I ask the committee not to support it.

I absolutely understand why the amendment was lodged and what it is trying to achieve. We are working with farmers, crofters and land managers to develop future support because we realise that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. We need to make sure that the measures that we introduce work for small farmers and crofters as well as for larger landowners. The work that we do on that will be important.