Chamber and committees

Will the member take an intervention?

Will Carol Mochan acknowledge the point that the minister made some time ago that, regardless of what members’ views are about implementation, there have been orchestrated campaigns in this country to, I would go so far as to say, waste police time around the implementation of the act by what I think can only be called bad-faith actors.

I hear what the member says about the number of complaints that were submitted in the first week. If it came to light that any groups or organisations were orchestrating what looks like an attempt to waste police time, would she condemn those groups?

It might interest the member to know that one of the reasons why it is so difficult for committees such as the one on which I serve to hear a perspective from the UK Government is that it not only refuses to turn up when it is invited but refuses to answer our letters.

Given the small but often essential and traditional role that peat plays in heating some of Scotland’s most fuel-poor communities—such as those in my constituency—will the minister say what criteria will be set for an emergency heat system and its fuel sources in relation to the new-build heat standard? I declare an interest of a sort, as I cut peat for my own use.

How does the First Minister respond to reports today that Brexit has cost Scotland up to £100 million a year in salmon exports? Companies have faced increased costs due to the hard Brexit that the Tories forced on Scotland, and Labour, too, has now reportedly rowed back on its pledge to renegotiate the United Kingdom’s Brexit deal. Does the First Minister agree that, in continuing to endorse Brexit, both the Tories and Labour are showing little regard for that vital industry?

The Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill and the secondary legislation that will follow it will have far-reaching effects across rural Scotland. The Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, on which I serve, has not been idle in taking evidence on the bill. It has already visited farms, held round-table events and received evidence in person and in writing from a wide range of stakeholders. The voices that we have heard have represented not only farmers and crofters but many others who likewise have a stake in rural development, the environment and questions of food security.

Like others, I thank all members of the committee and the clerking team for their work in producing the stage 1 report.

Parliament will now scrutinise the bill closely, as befits any legislation of this scope and scale. With Scotland being forcibly removed from the European Union, the common agricultural policy, as we have all understood it for half a century, now requires wholesale legislative replacement.

As others have pointed out, this is a framework bill. A wide range of voices in the countryside have recognised that that is the best way to proceed. Indeed, a framework bill is the only practicable solution, and it is therefore inevitably only in secondary legislation that many of the questions about the future direction of agricultural policy will receive their answers. However, I have to refute what I think was said in the previous speech, which seemed to suggest that secondary legislation does not involve scrutiny by this Parliament.

The objectives of agricultural policy, as set out in the legislation, take on a particular importance. The overarching objectives of agricultural policy are set out in part 1, which lays out the Scottish Government’s vision for agriculture—a vision that has been broadly welcomed by stakeholders and that commits to transforming how the Scottish Government supports farming and food production.

The aim is to make Scotland a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture, and a requirement is placed on Scottish ministers to prepare, lay before Parliament and publish a rural support plan. That plan will cover up to a five-year period and must set out the strategic priorities for providing support during the plan’s period. It must also give details of each support scheme that is in operation, or that is expected to come into operation, during that period.

The plan also allows ministers to make clear how agricultural support contributes to other statutory duties, such as climate commitments and EU alignment. Such a plan offers a level of certainty, which was sought by many through the consultation, within the flexible support model.

Making those objectives into policy on the ground will ultimately involve wrestling with some clear tensions. To cite but one such question, we will have to ask how we reconcile the need for food security, including production at scale, with the need to support forms of agriculture that have a low environmental impact. That has been alluded to by other speakers, but I think of my crofting constituents who, on average, receive £1,400 each in annual farming payments. I hope that we will ask whether that is the balance that we want to see in the future.

As a committee, we have also pointed to the need to recognise that we cannot simply offshore some of these big questions rather than answer them effectively ourselves. I think that we all agree that there would be no point in simply asking areas of the country that cannot easily support much agriculture beyond livestock to stop producing livestock. That would not, of itself, change the demand in Scotland and the UK for meat; it would simply transfer its production to parts of the world that have far lower welfare and environmental standards. At the same time, we are going to have to ask contentious questions about whether the need for national food security should be taken so far as to include subsidising the large-scale production of grain for whisky.

Many of the answers to these and other questions about Scottish agriculture depend to a very large extent on the UK funding envelope that is made available to Scotland in the first place. Despite the posturing of the Tories—[Interruption.] I hear some posturing from the Tories, so I will give way.

Notwithstanding the suspicions that Rachael Hamilton has expressed about the reasons for having a framework bill, will she acknowledge that the evidence that we received at committee was overwhelmingly in favour of a framework bill?

The member did mishear that. I merely asked, as others have, whether there are some forms of agriculture that we might want to ask questions about in the future—forms that require less support than others. That does not mean that we do not support—[Interruption.] That does not mean that we should stop growing grain for whisky, as the member well understands.

I agree with much of what the member is saying about the need for greater certainty in the support that is given to farmers. However—she knows what I am going to say—does she also accept that there is a need for greater certainty on the funding envelope from the UK Government, under which we will have to build an agriculture policy in Scotland, if we are to achieve any of our aims for agriculture?