Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to listen to Gillian Mackay’s summary, but could I intervene?

At the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, there are other facilities around the specific area that are encompassed in the zone, and I have felt as though I do not have enough information to reassure me that there would be no unintended consequences. I appreciate the work that the committee has done on the bill—you have obviously looked at it very closely. However, I felt that I needed more information on unintended consequences and proportionality, which is why I lodged amendment 43.

From the outset, I have been concerned that women have been put off accessing healthcare, which could be a danger to their health. That has been described to me by the charity Back Off Scotland.

I want to speak to Carol Mochan’s comment. There has always been an argument that a purpose clause is not necessary but, on Carol Mochan’s point, her own party brings forward purpose clauses in the context of other bills and argues that they are the right thing to do to make the bill clear. I know that the bill has been controversial among many, and I merely seek to bring the focus towards women’s health because we have been in danger of letting women down with regard to their health because of this situation.

On the minister’s point about legal concern, will she work with me to get the wording right if she has concerns, specifically about the reference to

“fear of intimidation or harassment”?

I think that a purpose clause would clarify the point that we are trying to make, namely the need to strengthen women’s health and access to women’s health services.

I am content with the cabinet secretary’s response to my concerns. I just hope that monitoring and evaluation will be included within the lens of the rural support plan to ensure that we get to the outcomes that we are trying to achieve and that the plan is effective. I will not press amendment 185.

Amendment 185, by agreement, withdrawn.

Actually, convener, I have made a mistake. Is it possible to not move amendment 195? I am happy to carry on if not.

I will speak to my amendment 186, and I confirm my support for all the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 186 would require the code of sustainable and regenerative agriculture to include an assessment of the potential impact that the reintroduction of species might have on food-producing land. The amendment is designed to protect productive land from any negative impacts of reintroduced species. It seeks to further safeguard food-producing land to ensure that the right land is used for the right purpose.

I acknowledge that the reintroduction of species aims to improve Scotland’s natural environment and biodiversity. However, the reintroduction of certain species into our natural environment must be done in a responsible manner. A scientific and evidence-based approach should always be taken, to ensure that species are properly introduced. That is important in rural areas, where the concerns of farmers and land managers must be taken seriously, particularly where the reintroduction of certain species could harm livestock or have other negative impacts on food-producing land.

I reiterate the call of my colleague Murdo Fraser, who, in a portfolio question time session on rural affairs, asked about the possibility of there being future compensation schemes for crops and grazing land lost to production.

I visited IndiNature in Jedburgh, which makes organic insulation products from hemp. Can Kate Forbes’s amendment be interpreted as including support for growing hemp, which is a non-food crop? A number of farmers are looking to grow hemp, and it is quite an important aspect of agricultural rotation—that is, non-food production.

On Tim Eagle’s amendment 143, some of those crops are really important for rotation. For example, peas and beans are particularly good for nitrogen fixing. What is it that the Scottish Greens do not like about the natural fixing of essential nutrients? Would you rather see artificial nitrogen put on the fields?

Amendment 166 would require the Scottish ministers to define what is considered to be in the public interest. A clear definition of what public interest means is required. Although there is a clear and accepted definition of public good, there are outputs and outcomes that do not meet that definition but could be deemed to be in the public interest, such as high-quality food production.

I support all the other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 166.

Amendment 134 would require support to be provided through multiyear budgets and ring-fenced funding. It is an important amendment that would give farmers and producers much-needed certainty about future support. Farms and crofts often work to long-term plans, which require certainty about future support. Farmers need to be able to plan for the future. The bill must therefore include a commitment to multiyear ring-fenced funding. We know that many stakeholders, such as NFU Scotland, Scottish Land & Estates and the food and agriculture stakeholders task force, support that.

The NFUS is calling for the five-year funding framework that the UK Government delivered for agriculture from 2019 to date to be repeated by the next UK Government, and the Agriculture Act 2020 sets in legislation the detail of a seven-year funding cycle. It is possible and realistic to have a commitment covering more than one year in the bill.

Amendment 136 would enshrine in the bill that any future peatland restoration or agroforestry support schemes would be accessible to tenant farmers. The amendment would help to remove barriers that tenant farmers often face when applying for support. I have been contacted by the Scottish Crofting Federation, which would also like crofters to be able to access some of those funding schemes. It is possible that we might end up working together on that amendment, cabinet secretary.

Amendment 138 would place a statutory duty on the Scottish Government to consult all relevant stakeholders on future agricultural support. Again, it is a very important amendment and is supported by key farming lobby groups. Similar to other amendments, and as noted in the stage 1 report, amendment 138 would provide much-needed reassurance to stakeholders by requiring a statutory consultation on future agricultural support.

I look forward to hearing colleagues’ explanations of other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 134.