Seòmar agus comataidhean

The convener will recognise that many of the amendments that I have lodged are aimed at ensuring that some of the issues that I have concerns about are discussed. Although I would like amendment 191 to be agreed to, given my track record so far today of not having the cabinet secretary support my amendments, I have little confidence that it will be supported.

Nevertheless, amendment 191 is important. During evidence sessions, the committee spoke to tenant farmers, who told us of their frustrations around accessing some schemes and having some of the challenges raised in the context of the bill. Originally, it was proposed that tenant farmers would be recognised through the lens of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill. However, a lot of that has now been moved to the scope of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is only in the initial stages of consideration.

My amendment 191 was inspired by looking at what the UK Government has done following the recommendations of the Rock review, which has included the introduction of a code of practice for tenant farmers. The amendment would give tenant farmers confidence that they are part of the bill. I understand why some may not support it—given the existing code of practice, they may not want to give tenant farmers their own code of practice. However, I think that it is really important, and I would like to hear from the cabinet secretary about how tenant farmers will be able to be part of the arrangements for access to schemes overall in the bill.

I move amendment 191.

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Amendment 185, by agreement, withdrawn.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.

Can the cabinet secretary direct me and my colleagues to the conditions that are set out, and the definition of “the public interest” test, whereby the Government agency would refuse to pay support? Where is that?

I will press my amendment, which is supported by the NFUS, SLE, FAST and others. Despite what the cabinet secretary has said, it is right that a definition of “the public interest” is brought forward in relation to section 10. The Government has the ability to do that and to allow Parliament to scrutinise it. It is important to give people clarity on the outcomes.

I was going to support Edward Mountain’s amendment 169, on removing section 10, although it is a bit of an oxymoron, but it sounds as though he is not going to move it. I am happy to support the other amendments in the group.