Chamber and committees

I appreciate that, given that this has been a long stage 2.

Throughout the morning, we have discussed a range of amendments from the STFA and other stakeholders. I feel that a lot of the discussion could have taken place earlier in the development of the bill. Issues often come up during the passage of bills that require further reflection, and we have the summer to do that with this bill. However, I wonder what the process of engagement with stakeholders now looks like from the Government’s point of view. I am sure that stakeholders had concerns way back when the bill was being developed, but those concerns do not seem to have been fully incorporated into the drafting of the bill. What I am looking for is a resolution to those issues and some clear examples from members and the Government of how that can be done before we sit in the chamber at stage 3 and ask, “How do we make sense of this?”

I again offer apologies on behalf of Ariane Burgess, who is convening this morning’s meeting of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee.

As the cabinet secretary mentioned, amendment 286 is related to the other amendments in the group that clarify whether the improvements that are currently set out in part 4 of schedule 5 will be moved to parts 1, 2 or 3. Amendment 286 seeks to move two kinds of improvements to part 3, which will mean that a tenant will not need to seek the landlord’s consent or to notify them in order to carry out such improvements.

The improvements in question are

“creating species-rich pasture”

and

“converting the holding (or a significant part of it) to a standard of organic farming that is capable of being accredited by a recognised accreditation organisation”.

It is important that our tenant farmers are able to make such improvements to enable them to undertake more sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices. Those improvements will help to support biodiversity through increasing the amount of species-rich pasture available for insects and vertebrates, while providing more species-rich grazing for livestock. The change in approach will assist tenant farmers in their conversion to organic farming.

I note that the success of the Government’s organic action plan, the increase that we are now seeing in organic conversion across different land classes and the subsequent growth in the market for organic produce are very positive.

I encourage members to support amendment 286.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Could I ask Douglas Lumsden to clarify something when he winds up? Is the amendment only about overhead lines? Over the years, I have spoken to a number of farmers who have gas pipelines going through their farms, and that has, at times, had quite a significant impact on the productivity of the soil. Sometimes it takes many decades for that soil to lose its compacted, degraded state and to return to productivity. I am not entirely sure where the fixation on overhead lines is coming from, given that lots of energy infrastructure can pass over farmland and might well have a significant impact on an agricultural tenant.

I reflect on the fact that the alternative to pylons is undergrounding, and in that case you are talking about motorway-sized trenches potentially going through sites of special scientific interest and special areas of conservation and running across riverbeds.

Energy infrastructure has an impact. I am just not sure why overhead lines are being targeted—well, I kind of know why they are being targeted, but I am just making the case. I am speaking up for the environment and the productivity of our farmland, which appears to have been ignored in the amendment, but maybe I am wrong.

Like the cabinet secretary, I think that you make a very strong case for having land management plans. I note that some of your Conservative colleagues are not supportive of the bill’s provisions on such plans, whereas Scottish Greens want to see them strengthened.

Oxygen Conservation has a number of estates around Scotland. For example, the committee has been to see the Invergeldie estate near Comrie, where community consultation is now on a better footing, as it is at Dorback estate in the Cairngorms.

When a new landowner with specific objectives comes into a community, they need to have an important conversation about species management and to carry out consultation with the community—with the people who have lived in the area for many years, who understand local traditions and the way in which land is managed there. The landowner needs to reflect that conversation in a land management plan. I think that strength comes from having such transparency.

If there are specific issues about culling, the number of animals that need to be culled, the traditions around that and the extent of it, those are exactly the issues that we need to see reflected in land management plans, and such plans really are a tool that can be used to crack them.

Yes.

Convener?

Excuse me—I am choking on my sandwich. My understanding is that, in the past, there has been informal culling of goats in those communities. Despite the fact that this natural capital company is now applying for a formal licence to do this, my understanding, which might or might not be correct, is that there has, traditionally, been some culling of goats in the area.

I am interested in your various sectors’ views on the proposed Rosyth-Dunkirk ferry. Could that be beneficial for trade? How might having an SPS agreement help with location of border control posts—or might it even make some of those posts irrelevant? Would it help with achieving frictionless trade? Would it help to get the case for the ferry over the line if the agreement were to be implemented?

On the point about cost reduction, are you disappointed that there was not, in the agreement, something on free movement of labour? Presumably—as you have already indicated, I think—free movement of labour benefits you in terms of jobs in processing and other jobs?