Chamber and committees

A constituent has written to me to say that they appealed something and have been waiting for a determination for five years. Surely that cannot be equitable—it must be equitable to sort that out much quicker. After all, people’s lives and businesses are on the line if their appeals are not heard on a reasonable timescale. Do you not think that my amendment proposes a fair way of doing that?

When I spoke to the cabinet secretary yesterday, she said that she was going to support some of my amendments. We are four down with two to go, so I hope that my amendment 187 will be one of those that she supports.

Amendment 187 suggests that, 180 days after royal assent, a draft code should be published. At that stage, we will all understand what sustainable and regenerative agriculture is. I have been farming for 40 years but I struggle to understand the definition of it. If you look closely into the matter, you find that sustainable and regenerative agriculture seeks to

“rebuild the biological and chemical processes that may have existed at one point but have diminished over time”.

I am not sure whether those time periods are BC or AD, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 300 years ago, last week or last month. That is why I think that farmers need a clear explanation of what sustainable and regenerative agriculture is. However hard I have looked and however hard I have listened, I cannot define it. I would say that most farmers are engaged in sustainable and regenerative agriculture, but it would be extremely beneficial for the Government to confirm that that is the case by explaining what it is within 180 days of royal assent.

My amendment 169 is a probing amendment, because I want to see where the cabinet secretary is going with the power in section 10. It seems to be a fairly draconian power, as it will give the Government the absolute right, without any right of appeal or ability for the person involved to speak to the Government, to withdraw all payments—and, in fact, to reclaim payments.

In the past, with regard to reclaiming payments, the Government has, interestingly, been draconian by demanding all the money back at very short notice or by refusing support on the basis of rules that some people did not understand. However, when the Government makes a mistake, it is, of course, not held accountable at all.

The aim of my amendment is to get an undertaking from the cabinet secretary that she will meet me to discuss section 10 and see whether there is a way that we can build in a right of appeal, so that anyone who has that draconian power used against them can speak to the Government without the impenetrable barriers that people sometimes meet in the rural payments department.

I propose not to move the amendment if the cabinet secretary gives me that undertaking. If she does not, I will move it and we will see where we go.

I will not be any more verbose than I have been already, convener, so I will just press amendment 183.

I am not sure how amendment 161 cuts across that work. It applies to people “in receipt of support”. If co-development is being pursued, surely they would be consulted anyway. I do not quite follow your logic. Could you explain that to me, please?

Before I say anything, I remind members of my declaration of interests, about which I will be entirely clear. I have 140 pedigree suckler cows that produce top-quality beef in Scotland. I grow grain that is used for the production of whisky and feed, and I grow vegetables under contract. I employ three people, who are fully involved, one of whom lives on the farm with his family. I generate and pay tax in Scotland and the single farm payment that I receive covers less than 15 per cent of the annual outgoings for the farm. I hope that that is clear and that there is no dubiety about where I come from.

Regarding the previous amendments in this group, one must be really careful when capping things, for the simple reason that capping a payment may prevent large-scale activity taking place. I do not believe that payments should be based on the size of a holding. Payment should be based on the activity taking place in a holding. If that activity is in the public interest, it is good and should be rewarded, and capping it would, therefore, be bad.

My amendments 161 and 162 are about ensuring that the Government talks to people before it considers capping things. Amendment 161 asks that

“persons in receipt of support or relevant assistance”

that could be capped be consulted before that capping takes place. That seems logical, otherwise we will revert to the situation that we had in 2016, when the Pack review came about and Richard Lochhead capped payments. Farmers did not know that that was coming until just before it happened and they had already made commitments. I am therefore keen for people to be consulted in advance.

I am also keen for the Government to pay particular attention to the committees within this Parliament. I am a committee convener, so you would be surprised if I did not say that. I believe that, before it sets about capping, the Government should also ask the committee who should be consulted. That seems logical to me.

Amendment 162 inserts the word “other” after “such” to ensure that any consultation regarding capping is carried out as widely as possible. The Government may try to reject that proposal, but it would just mean that it would have to talk to more people, which is surely what politics is about and must be a good thing.

I look forward to hearing that the cabinet secretary agrees with me and I do not intend to speak to the other amendments in the group.

I am certainly not winding you up. If I am, I am doing a very bad job of it.

However, I turn to Ben Macpherson to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 128.

That seems to be a logical place for a short stop. I must ask members to be reseated by 11 o’clock.

Before I suspend the meeting, though, I will just point out that we are a wee bit behind where I thought that we would be at this stage, and it looks like we will have an early start next week, unless things happen to change that position.

There will be a division.

For

Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Against

Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)

Abstentions

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)

Welcome back to the second day of stage 2 consideration of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill. I call amendment 15, in the name of Maurice Golden—[Interruption.]

I am sorry, I jumped ahead of myself. I was trying to save time and I got it wrong.

Amendment 215, in the name of Maurice Golden, is in a group on its own. I call Maurice Golden to move and speak to amendment 215.