Chamber and committees

Section 6 will enable us to provide future support in different forms, such as grants, loans or guarantees, and it will also enable us to then put conditions on that support. It is deliberately broadly drafted to provide maximum flexibility and to enable the Government and Parliament to future proof the provisions introduced by the bill.

Amendments 202 and 203, in the name of Brian Whittle, seek to prioritise support for different activities. I have been consistently clear that there is no contradiction between high-quality food production and producing food in a way that works for climate and nature. Amendments 202 and 203 directly contradict that and fly in the face of what we have tried to set out. The powers in section 6 are already broad enough to enable us to prioritise

“primary production of food and drink products”

in the manner intended, if it is right to do so. I do not consider amendments 202 and 203 to be helpful additions to the bill, because they would probably confuse things rather than help understanding. I therefore ask the committee not to support them.

Amendment 66 would impose conditions on how we deliver future support. Although I understand the intention behind the amendment, which Rhoda Grant lodged, it does not work, because the purposes for which support can be provided extend far beyond land. Examples that highlight that are existing cross-compliance statutory management requirements, such as those that relate to animal health and welfare, food and feed, safety and traceability, and the requirements for the conservation of wild birds. There are also other examples. Those are all vital conditions for protecting animal and human health and the environment. Such measures cannot be restricted on the basis of farm size. That is why I encourage members not to support amendment 66.

I will come to Edward Mountain’s amendment 169, but I will cover the other amendments in the group first.

With regard to amendments 166 and 72, under the existing agricultural support scheme, conditions can be imposed that relate to quite a wide range of matters. Where conditions are not complied with, Scottish ministers can require the repayment of support, including with interest. In rare cases, it might be right to refuse, or to recover, support that is otherwise due, even if the standard conditions for support are met.

I hope that we would all agree that it is appropriate to take forward such provisions into a new financial support framework. Section 10 therefore provides ministers with the ability to

“refuse to provide support if they consider that it is not in the public interest for a person to receive it”

or to recover support that has already been paid.

They have to do so, however, in accordance with the regulations that will be set out under section 10. Those regulations will make provision in respect of the meaning of “the public interest” for that purpose. Any regulations that we bring forward would be subject to scrutiny by Parliament. It might, for example, be in the public interest to be able to refuse to pay support for animal welfare purposes to a person who has an animal cruelty conviction or to recover previously granted support from such a person.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 166 and Rhoda Grant’s amendment 72 would require any regulations to make provision in respect of the public interest. However, their proposed changes are not necessary, because section 10 already provides the powers that we need for that purpose. Rather than providing clarity, therefore, those amendments could make the scope of the power to make regulations less clear.

With regard to amendment 73, committee members will, no doubt, be aware that the three-month period that we have specified in the bill mirrors what is in the UK Agriculture Act 2020. Three months seems to be a reasonable period for an exceptional power to intervene in agricultural markets, especially as section 12(8) of the bill provides a means for the extension of that declaration and section 12(9) provides for

“making ... another ... declaration”,

which may relate

“in whole or part to the same exceptional market conditions”

if that proves to be necessary.

I think that the existing provisions that we have set out are proportionate. They also offer the appropriate means by which the period can be extended when necessary.

I was not going to make an intervention at this point, convener—I did not know whether you were turning to me. Sorry—I was jumping ahead.

I will touch briefly on amendments 14 and 15, in my name. They are minor technical changes to section 18, to improve the drafting and ensure that we have consistency. They are not a change in policy, so I hope that the committee will support them.

I understand the intention behind Rhoda Grant’s amendment 82. I reassure members that the Scottish Government will continue to publish information about direct payments and will work with the sector and stakeholders to consider what other information should be made public. Amendment 82 would mean that any regulations about the publication of information would have to include an information requirement under section 17, even if there was no need for that. Therefore, I ask Rhoda Grant not to press amendment 82. If she does, I ask members not to support it.

With regard to what Richard Leonard has set out in relation to amendment 13, I am absolutely sympathetic to the intentions of his amendment, because it seeks to promote greater transparency. That is what we intend by enabling ministers to make regulations on the publication of information about payment recipients.

However, there are some technical issues with amendment 13 as drafted. That includes the reference to the concept of “beneficial ownership”, which does not have a clear meaning under Scots law. Some information about the control of companies and trusts, as Richard Leonard has outlined, can be obtained from other sources, including the new register of persons holding a controlled interest in land that he mentioned.

There is also the question of the extent to which the bill should legislate for matters that might not relate to agricultural policy, even if they have a wider public benefit. We would also need to get the consent of the Information Commissioner in terms of the current consultation, which is still on-going. However, I am happy to have further discussions about that. I ask Richard Leonard not to move amendment 13, so that we can continue that discussion before stage 3.

With regard to amendment 83, section 17 makes provision for the publication of information about support payments to particular individuals or legal persons. Rhoda Grant’s amendment 83 would change that section so that it covers information about the strategy for and outcomes of agricultural policy. I listened carefully to the rationale that Rhoda Grant set out for the amendment, but I do not think that this is the appropriate place to put that measure. I am not convinced that the particular enabling powers in sections 13 and 17 are suitable for that purpose.

As we discussed at length last week in relation to the rural support plan, I am open to considering how reporting and monitoring could be improved as part of further changes. I am happy to have that further discussion with Rhoda Grant on what that might look like and to consider the matters that she raises as part of amendment 83. Because of that, I ask Rhoda Grant not to press her amendment 83 today.

But we would be bringing forward regulations for parliamentary scrutiny. That is the whole purpose of section 10.

As I hope I have been able to outline, that is why I ask the committee not to support those amendments. I am happy to support amendment 167, from Beatrice Wishart, and to consult on that basis.

With regard to amendment 169, I am glad that I now know the reason behind the lodging of that amendment, because it was quite hard to understand when I initially saw it. I am happy to engage in further dialogue with Edward Mountain in relation to the powers in section 10.

As I have outlined to the committee previously, the code of practice in sustainable and regenerative agriculture is meant to be that guidance and support. It will adapt and change over time. It is meant to be a supportive document for our farmers and crofters. I am trying to outline alternative examples of how its use or application could benefit a farmer or crofter, and I think that that helpfully illustrates how it is intended to be used.

In relation to amendment 155, although guidance might not be mandatory, there are circumstances in which it is helpful to the parties or to the court for them to be able to give due weight to guidance and legal proceedings. That is why section 7(2)(d) has been included in the bill. Current cross-compliance provides an example of that. We have the 13 statutory management requirements, which are based on existing legislation. Cross-compliance operates separately from the criminal process, but criminal proceedings can run in parallel. For example, a claimant who has falsified a cattle passport might be prosecuted by the local authority, as well as having a penalty applied to the support scheme payments. Again, we have set out that information on the relevant websites, which provide clarity to claimants.

By removing section 7(2)(d), amendment 155 would remove the ability to make regulations that would help the courts to act in a way that is fair to everyone. Again, as with the previous amendment, I do not think that that is the intention or what is looking to be achieved, which is why I ask the committee not to support the amendment.

I appreciate what Ariane Burgess has set out regarding her amendments, and I am, of course, happy to meet her to discuss the matter further, as I would be with other members around the table.

We have set out clearly that we need flexibility in the bill, and the amendments would restrict us in that regard. Some of the amendments are unworkable administratively, too, and there would be significant concerns around some of the amendments as they have been drafted. I am more than happy to meet the member to discuss the matter further.

I am sorry, but consultation is mentioned in relation to section 9.

Like amendment 159, amendments 158 and 165 seek to specify the tiered support model in the bill when that would be better done through regulations. Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 165 goes so far as to define tier 1 in the context of an existing support payment. As with amendment 159, I am concerned that that would limit the future flexibility of the framework for which the bill provides. I hope that I have highlighted that it is important for us to retain that flexibility and to future proof the legislation.

That will include potentially capping or tapering future payments and schemes within the tiers when and where the Scottish ministers consider that appropriate. Crucially, that will involve industry and other partners helping to co-develop the right approaches for the new tiered payments, including on capping and tapering. That is why I encourage the committee not to support those amendments.

I turn to Rhoda Grant’s amendment 69. The Government is committed to the principles of fair work and to ensuring that workers in rural Scotland are paid a fair wage for their labour. My amendment 5 puts that principle at the core of the rural support plan and ensures that it will be a central consideration in the provision of that support. Rhoda Grant will be aware from previous discussions on the matter, including last week, that, in drafting the provision, due care and attention have been paid to the Parliament’s present competences in relation to legislating on employment matters. That is why I ask the committee not to support amendment 69.

I turn now to amendments 160 to 163. Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 160 seeks to impose what I think is an arbitrary time window for consulting on this section of the bill, and Edward Mountain’s amendments 161 and 162 prescribe who is to be consulted. I do not think that those amendments are reasonable, and I think that they lose sight of the existing process of co-development that I have talked about. I think that they could cut across that work to the detriment of the support that farmers, crofters and land managers might receive in the future.

I am more than happy to meet Rhoda Grant to discuss the issues further, because, as I said, I completely understand the rationale for amendment 55 being lodged. However, the way that the amendment has been drafted means that it is too restrictive in relation to the types of activity. As I said, I am more than happy to pick up that conversation with her before stage 3.

Amendment 147 seeks to limit the power of the Scottish ministers to provide forestry support under the bill unless an environmental impact assessment has been completed for all woodland creation schemes on land of more than 40 hectares and for smaller schemes on land that would, cumulatively, exceed 40 hectares.

I understand that the amendment is based on a recommendation that was made in a report that was published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Scottish Forestry believes that the recommendation and the thought process that led to it were based on a flawed understanding of how EIA regulations for forestry work. All new Scottish planting schemes that exceed 20 hectares are already subject to screening assessments under the Forestry (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, as are any other projects that are in an environmentally sensitive area, regardless of the size of the project.

Amendment 147 would apply only to grant-funded woodland, which would result in a two-tier system developing in which grant-funded woodland creation would be subject to more onerous administrative and financial requirements than woodland creation that is funded by private investment, which could include community-owned woodland. That could result in a slowdown in woodland creation or, worst of all, a significant downturn in the creation of new woodland, particularly native woodland, and in natural regeneration. It would directly disadvantage Scottish farmers and other land managers, whereas woodland investment that was privately funded would not be disadvantaged. If it were to pass, amendment 147 would significantly increase the bureaucracy and costs related to publicly funded tree planting.

I hope that committee members agree that we do not want those things to happen, particularly at a time when we want to support our Scottish land managers to undertake the right climate change mitigation actions for their needs. That is why I do not support amendment 147. I ask Ariane Burgess not to press her amendment.