Chamber and committees

First, I will talk about Mark Ruskell’s amendments. He lodged them very quickly, but they exactly represent the concerns about part 2 of the bill that we heard. It is not often that we hear such uniform concern from various stakeholders, but it is what was apparent.

I like what Mark Ruskell has done. My personal preference—I urge any Opposition member in the committee to consider this—is that we should say at stage 2, “Delete this, go back and think again.” The cabinet secretary and the civil servants behind the scenes should go back, because there is clearly a problem here. Various amendments are floating around, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not. Fundamentally, Mark Ruskell is right to push to delete part 2 of the bill at stage 2. Rather than amending part 2 in a piecemeal way, let us have a proper debate on its provisions once the Government has taken more advice from stakeholders ahead of stage 3.

My amendment 313 is effectively a non-regression clause that would retain the protections that are currently in place, should we choose not to delete part 2 today. However, as I said, my preference is that we delete part 2 at this point, so I fully support Mark Ruskell’s amendments 1, 2 and 3.

Is it not quite crude to look at farms in that way? Not only do we have enhanced greening under tier 2, but many farms are also in the Scottish rural development programme, the agri-environment climate scheme and so on, and some farms are organic. Every farm will be doing its own environmental work, and I think that many farmers, crofters and smallholders are doing a lot of good environmental work out there.

This goes back to my earlier frustration. If there had been an expanded options list under tier 2, farmers might have been able to pick exactly what worked on their farm, to the benefit of the nature on that farm, rather than having a smaller group of options, which might restrict them.

When it comes to farm viability, I have two questions. First, are you looking to go above the 7 per cent figure at any point in the future? Secondly, do you foresee introducing more and different options before the 7 per cent requirement comes into effect in 2027?

You have it. It is on your website. You have an expanded list that, I think, ARIOB members proposed to you.

Which stakeholder is saying that you cannot have an enhanced list of options under tier 2? Why have you put in only another four options, instead of providing the originally proposed much wider list?

Minister, there are a few things in what you have just said, and I do not think that we got any answers, to be frank. This has been your programme and your route map since 2023—you have been working on it for ages. I have spoken to several members of the agriculture reform implementation oversight board, as well as to some other key stakeholders, and I do not think that you are taking people on a journey with you on this.

Let us touch on the IT system. Saying that the “IT system is not in my wording just now” is an interesting choice of words.

You have just made the assumption that you will get the regulations through.

So, you are 100 per cent confident that you can target your agricultural policy specifically at the needs of Scottish farmers, crofters and smallholders without risk by following EU legislation and rules.

I have one final question. I was trying to find my notes, but I cannot find them.

Back in March—I think it was—we had a round table with various members of the agricultural industry, including some members of ARIOB. There were some positive remarks, but there were some pretty scathing remarks, too, about how they felt they had been treated in the process.

You have made a lot of comments today about moving at a pace that suits farmers and taking people with you. I just want to double-check, however, because I am concerned that this is quite late in the day and the reform route map that was set out is not really coming to pass in quite the way we all imagined that it would. How can you give me certainty, given what I heard back in March, that ARIOB is working and that stakeholders feel included in the process?

I have a question about how the system will work on the ground, in practice. You carry out inspections every year. To what extent will you relax the rigour with which you apply any penalties as farmers and crofters adapt over the next couple of years? Are you prepared to be a little more lenient as farmers transition?

I will talk about the increase in EFA coverage up to 7 per cent. Next year, 5 per cent of arable areas must be maintained as EFAs—for which there are four new options—and, from 2027, that will go up to 7 per cent. NFUS has raised significant concerns about that. It thinks that there needs to be a review of whether that will result in a fully proportionate environmental benefit, although I recognise that some environmental groups have suggested that, actually, there should be a further increase. How did you decide on that 7 per cent level from 2027, and why did you choose that timeline?