Chamber and committees

I hope that the rest of my comments will better answer some of the concerns that you raise. I understand the concerns that have been raised, because we discussed the issue at length in committee. I also understand why the amendments in the group have been lodged. However, I am trying to set out why section 7 is relevant and important.

Amendment 154 shows a misunderstanding of why we might want provisions on compliance with guidance and why that should be taken into account when we determine whether a duty or condition has been met.

In the example of a farmer who had potentially been challenged, a provision of that type might help them to show that what they were doing was lawful or that it met a condition of support. It might help them to show that a particular penalty should not be applied, which would be more likely to ensure fairness than the contrary, as well as helping farmers to manage their businesses with certainty.

Another example is that, under the current schemes, scales of compliance are reflected in cross-compliance. There are currently 32 ways in which a breach of cross-compliance can be assessed that recognise intent, extent, severity, permanence and reoccurrence. Penalties can range from 1 per cent to 100 per cent. Guidance on penalties is currently set out on the rural payments and services website, which provides clarity to claimants.

We could use that power to set out the extent to which compliance with the guidance is relevant in determining whether there is a breach. That would provide greater certainty for farmers who just want to do the right thing. By removing it, amendment 154 would remove the ability to provide that clarity. To be fair, I do not think that that was the intent of the amendment. Therefore, I encourage Tim Eagle not to press the amendment. If he does, I encourage the committee not to support it.

Yes, of course. We have already touched on the good food nation plans and the issues that can be considered in that regard. That is meant to involve a cross-Government approach—we are looking at all the different areas that touch on food policy and giving them further consideration. Again, I think that the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 is the appropriate lens through which to look at the issues that Emma Harper has raised.

Absolutely. The point is that we want to develop it further. It is a pilot at the moment. Ultimately, we want to work with small producers to find the best means of providing support and to discover what support will work best for them.

As I have just outlined, we are at the start of that process. We must take the actions that we learn from the pilot need to be taken and look to develop that fund in future. I am more than happy to continue to engage with the member and the committee, and to provide them with an update on that work as it progresses.

Amendment 68 seeks to create an unspecified minimum level of support that an applicant can receive. I am not able to support amendment 68, because it would create the potential for public support to be gained even if the contribution to outcomes might not merit it.

Amendments 70, 71 and 159 are all variations on the same idea, which call for unspecified levels of front loading to be put into primary legislation. As I have already outlined to the committee, I am committed to supporting small producers according to their needs, and to working with them to develop that support.

Concepts such as front loading and minimum levels of direct support reflect people’s issues and the concerns that they have highlighted with the present and soon-to-be past model of support that we are currently working in. I readily acknowledge that that model has not done enough to support small producers, but, as I outlined to Rhoda Grant, we need the time to develop how best to do that in future as part of our future framework and tiered support. For those reasons, I urge the committee not to support amendments 68, 78, 71 and 159.

On Rhoda Grant’s amendments in this group, section 26 places a duty on the Scottish ministers to prepare and publish a code of practice. As I have already set out, the intention is to give farmers and crofters guidance on a range of ways in which they could voluntarily undertake activity that constitutes sustainable and/or regenerative agriculture. Many activities could be undertaken, because not everything will suit every sector, geography or business.

Rhoda Grant’s amendments would neither enable nor empower farmers and crofters to take up activity that best suits their needs. As we know, regulations are a form of legislation, so requiring them for the code of practice would make the code prescriptive and would limit farmers’ and crofters’ agency and choice. Therefore, I urge committee members not to support amendments 84 to 86.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 186 would require the code to assess the impact of species reintroduction. I suggest that there is no need for the amendment, because that assessment could already be made under section 26(3), which sets out what the code should include. Moreover, lots of different actions and activities should be considered in terms of their impact, and it is not helpful to single that one out and put it in the bill. I am also not clear why the code of practice should cover the reintroduction of species, especially when that is not defined. I therefore ask the committee not to support amendment 186.

Edward Mountain might be in luck, because I am, of course, sympathetic to the intention of amendment 187. Although the amendment’s drafting is technically defective, I am happy to work with him on the drafting of an amendment ahead of stage 3.

I am sorry to say this, given that amendment 188 is Mr Eagle’s final amendment, but, as I have said, section 26 requires the Scottish ministers to consult

“such persons as they consider likely to be interested in or affected by”

the code of practice and to lay it before the Scottish Parliament prior to publishing it, which, in my view, gives Parliament and members sufficient opportunity to input their views on the code before it is finalised. Therefore, I ask members not to support amendment 188.

I appreciate the points that members have made. A wide range of amendments have been put forward in this group, both for and against capping, redistributive action and what has been called front loading. I ask members to consider my comments on each, bearing in mind that section 9 already allows for redistributive payments.

Ariane Burgess’s amendment 67 seeks to make capping mandatory. I think that that should be a matter for the Scottish ministers to consider. The power that we have drafted and set out is a permissive one, and any decision to use it will be based on consultation with those persons the Scottish ministers consider appropriate. Edward Mountain made some points in relation to that, but he has not been part of the other discussions that we have had at previous committee meetings, when I talked about how co-development is foundational to our approach for developing policy. It is critical to remember that.

It is necessary for us to retain overall flexibility to be able to deliver the flexible, future-proof legislation that we will need if we are to deliver our vision for agriculture. It must work for us today, but we must ensure that we have legislation that will work in the future. For that reason, I ask the committee not to support amendment 67.

Amendments 68, 70, 71 and 159 all seek to address matters related to our smaller producers. I have already made clear our commitment to ensuring that smaller producers continue to thrive, and I am happy to reiterate that commitment again today. If anything, we want there to be more small producers.

Our small producer pilot, which I have previously mentioned to the committee, is just a start on that journey, as we seek to ensure that we listen to small producers and co-develop support that will work for them. Given their unique contribution to rural Scotland, we want to ensure that small producers are not considered only as an add-on to a generalist support model.

A lot of important points have been raised in the discussion, and I will try to cover as many of them as possible in my comments.

I will start with my amendment 17. It makes clearer the types of criteria that CPD activity providers may be expected to comply with under regulations. Stakeholders have indicated that some CPD providers come into the profession with valuable skills and experience but not necessarily with formal qualifications. Amendment 17 ultimately seeks to recognise the value of those skills and experience, and I hope that it provides reassurance to people who have those skills and experience but who may not necessarily have formal qualifications that ministers will look to those factors when setting out the criteria for the certification of persons who are providing CPD. Accordingly, I ask the committee to support amendment 17.

Turning to amendment 16, we support the inclusion of farm workers, but that amendment is narrower in scope than, and is covered by, amendment 192, in the name of Alasdair Allan. Amendment 192 will ensure that ministers will be able to make a CPD regime that could apply more broadly to persons who work in agriculture, whether or not they are employees. That could include family members and other relations as well as other people. I therefore ask Richard Leonard not to press his amendment 16, and I ask the committee to support Alasdair Allan’s amendment 192.

I will group together most of the other amendments—I realise that there are quite a few in this group. Amendments 193 to 197, 199 and 88 seek, in varying degrees, to put certain requirements of CPD into the bill, which is why I want to try to address them together. First, I want to reassure members that a substantial piece of work is already under way in relation to the future agricultural knowledge and innovation system—AKIS. Indeed, at the request of stakeholders, including farmers and crofters, CPD will form a core part of the new system. Informal consultation has already taken place with a wide range of stakeholder organisations on a future AKIS, including on CPD, which has drawn to our attention many of the matters that members are now seeking to include in the bill.

As I have said previously in relation to other amendments, it is fully my intention to co-design the CPD regime, involving a wide range of stakeholders, to capture and address many of those matters—the formats, the scale and the scope of who might undertake CPD and in what circumstances. We intend to consult on proposals later this year, and the aim is to formally consult on the CPD regulations in 2025.

When it comes to those amendments as a whole, I ask members not to move them, so that we can work together to address some of the issues, recognising, as I said, that some of the amendments are, to varying degrees, quite similar. I appreciate what members want to be captured in the bill, and I very much want to work with them on that.

That leaves two amendments for me to address. First, amendment 198 would have the effect that Scottish ministers could introduce compulsory CPD requirements only if they related

“to relevant health and safety issues”.

I absolutely recognise the importance of health and safety in agriculture, but the effect of amendment 198 is very restrictive. Given the scope and value of learning and development competencies that are of interest to the relevant sectors and are required to deliver the agricultural reform programme’s aims and objectives, I ask the committee not to support amendment 198.

Secondly, in relation to amendment 89, I absolutely recognise the importance of ensuring that CPD requirements are proportionate. As I have outlined, we intend to co-design with industry a CPD regime that is not overly burdensome and, of course, is not unfair to the industry. We have already undertaken an informal consultation, and I have set out our intentions to consult later next year. That will help to ensure that a CPD regime is fair, works for all and adds genuine value. I ask members not to support amendment 89.

I am happy to give an assurance on that.

I will turn to the amendment and what it sets out in relation to the CAP scheme. I understand the requirement for monitoring and evaluation and that, when we are using public money, we need to be able to evidence how it is being used and what is being delivered. However, we have existing reporting requirements for CAP within the rural development regulations, and the bill does not change that. I touched on an example at the committee meeting last week: last month, we commenced the formal ex-post evaluation for the Scottish rural development programme for the entire 2014-20 programming period, as part of the formal closure requirements for the programme. We will continue to report on CAP schemes.

The purpose of the bill is to provide the powers to enable a payment framework that will replace the previous CAP legislation. As I set out in the discussions last week, I think that the rural support plan is the right place for that. Last week, I made a substantial offer on funding, which will cover what currently exists for CAP alongside what we are going to introduce as part of our future framework, too. Therefore, I ask Rachael Hamilton not to press her amendment.

In relation to front loading, I do not think that it is right that we include such commitments in the bill, because we need to have the flexibility to be able to design the new system. If we decide to take that decision after we have done the co-development work, we have the powers to do that. I do not think that it is right for us to embed in the bill a provision that commits us to a particular system or scheme without us having had that conversation. That is still part of the co-development work that is to be undertaken.

I am more than happy to have that conversation.

I turn to Brian Whittle’s amendment 56, which seeks to amend part 4 of schedule 1 by specifically referencing the

“identification of rural anchor institutions”.

I fully recognise and value the important role of anchor institutions in supporting rural development, and I am happy to support amendment 56.

Amendment 57 seeks to enable support to be provided to rural communities to help to create community benefits. Amendment 58 seeks to enable Scottish ministers to assist people to start a business or enterprise for the purpose of nature restoration, which is a core objective of our agricultural policy and our vision for agriculture. Amendment 59 seeks to enable Scottish ministers to provide support to assist

“persons to invest in nature-based enterprises in rural areas.”

I agree that we should be able to do that. Amendment 62 seeks to amend schedule 1 to widen the activities that could be supported under the new rural support framework. I support the objectives behind those amendments, and I urge the committee to support amendments 57 to 59 and 62.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 148 seeks to amend paragraph 12 of schedule 1, which covers support for recreational access to land. It would have the effect that support could be provided only for the purpose of improving recreational access to land. However, I do not think that that would be a useful change. If persons use the improved access, access must be responsible under the right to roam, as set out in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. If they use the improved access on some other basis—for example, because it is a right of way or because the owner gives consent—ministers would not be able to provide support. I ask the committee not to support amendment 148.

Amendment 60 seeks to improve paragraph 13 of schedule 1, on soil, by providing further details of what can be done for the purpose of improving or protecting soil health and quality, which are of vital importance for our farmers and the wider environment. I think that the clarification provided by the amendment is useful, so I ask the committee to support it.

Amendment 61 seeks to amend schedule 1 so that assistance should include actions relating to

“agriculture, forestry, land use and land use change.”

I am happy to support that amendment.

Amendment 149 seeks to augment the purposes of support to include compensating persons in respect of the additional costs that are incurred and income that is lost by the person in consequence of the implementation of the reintroduction of particular species. I have some sympathy with what Tim Eagle is trying to achieve with his amendment. As has been mentioned, we provide compensation in relation to some species, but we do not normally do that through this route. However, it would be worth while to provide the opportunity to provide such support in the future under schedule 1.

I note that amendment 149 also covers the introduction of non-native species, which I do not think was necessarily intended. I ask Tim Eagle not to press amendment 149 at this stage in order to allow me to consider the issues further ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 63 seeks to amend schedule 1 to expand support under the new proposed rural support framework to include those persons, businesses and organisations that wish to preserve or protect water and the land’s capacity for holding water. I am therefore happy to support amendment 63.

Lastly, amendment 201 seeks to add a definition of “horticulture” to paragraph 2(2) in schedule 1. I think that the word would otherwise take its ordinary meaning, which does not appear to be particularly different but offers more flexibility. That said, I understand that the amendment is intended to bring further clarity and I am happy to support it, although I may come back to tweak some of that wording ahead of stage 3.

That is what I am just coming to. I am talking about all those amendments in the round.

Section 9(2) already places on the Scottish ministers a requirement to consult, and, because capping is a budget control mechanism, the timing of any regulations will be linked to the standard budget processes. It is doubtful that that would be possible within the six-month period that is specified in amendment 160.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 163 also seeks to amend the bill in a way that could limit the breadth of consultees on the expenditure of public money, even though there is potentially a wider interest in that regard. For the reasons I have outlined, I encourage the committee not to support amendments 160 to 163.

On amendment 164, we had initially proposed that regulations under the section be subject to the negative procedure, as I expected that the power would be used in respect of matters of detail and to fine-tune funding in the light of experience, in order to provide the best outcome against the vision while trying to maintain public value. However, I appreciate the concerns that have been raised by stakeholders as well as by MSPs, so I am happy to recommend that the committee support amendment 164.