Chamber and committees

I would like to get a bit of clarity on some of what the convener touched on in his original line of questioning on the balance of funding allocation between tier 1 and tier 2 and above. From the evidence that was submitted to the committee and the consultation responses, it is fair to say that a number of organisations have made an assumption about that allocation and have objected to it, while others have stated that they felt it to be ambiguous.

For clarity, I will paraphrase what the financial memorandum says—I think in paragraph 21. It states that, in broad terms, the Government intends to maintain underpinning support through base payments, under tier 1, and universally accessible support for land managers undertaking climate and nature actions through the enhanced mechanism, under tier 2, and to do so at similar levels to current direct support. The organisations that have submitted evidence to us have read that in two different ways. Some have read it as meaning that the individual payments will be roughly similar to the current level of payment, with new conditions, potential capping and so on. Others have taken it to mean that the overall balance of budget allocation between the amount of money given to tier 1 and the amount given to tier 2 and above will stay roughly as it is at the moment.

Could you clarify which of those readings is correct?

At the moment, there is no intention for tier 2 to become a larger share of the overall budget. As you have laid it out for the purposes of this conversation, tier 1 prevents things from getting worse. There are conditions in tier 1 to prevent further environmental degradation, but it is not about improvement as such. Tier 2 is about improvement, but what we have in front of us does not give any indication that tier 2 will become a larger share of the overall budget.

That is useful. However, going back to what the convener said, you can see the challenge for us, given that those decisions will all be made at a much later date; they are not what we are looking at now. We are being asked to scrutinise what is in front of us, but the challenge is that what is in front of me does not give me any confidence—because it leaves a blank space in that area—that the current bill and the Government’s financial assumptions around it will contribute towards the statutory climate targets that we already have, never mind the nature targets that we are likely to put into statute, the Government’s policy objectives and so on.

How have you gone about engaging with the Government team that is leading on the development of the climate plan, for example, to make sure that the bill is pointing in the same direction as the statutory climate targets in the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 and the plan that is being produced for later this year?

Thank you very much. That was really useful.

That was useful—thank you. You have pointed out that tier 2 has more conditionality around climate, nature restoration and so on. Correct me if I am wrong but, at the moment, the vast majority of funding goes through tier 1, which is largely unconditioned. The tension that has come out in a lot of the evidence that has been submitted to us lies in how to square the circle between the ministerial commitment on no cliff edge, which you have mentioned, and other ministerial commitments for a transformation in agriculture, which is in the vision statement, the statutory targets for climate and emissions reduction and the statutory targets that we will soon have on nature. It is hard for me to square what is in the financial memorandum and the bill with other commitments that ministers have made and other legislative commitments that are already in place. There will not be a significant shift in funding in the short to medium term. Therefore, what is proposed in the bill will not result in a shift towards lower emissions, more restoration of nature and so on, to which the Government has already committed and which the Parliament has already put in law.

I am sorry to cut across you, but you must acknowledge that they do not improve the situation. At the moment, Scotland is a massively ecologically degraded country with a significant net contribution to global climate change. We recognise that something needs to change, so it is not good enough to say that, at the moment, the basic payments are conditioned on not making things much worse. We have all agreed—the Parliament, the Government and the sector—that the status quo is not good enough. The conditions for the basic payments really do not fly, do they?

That is useful. Finally, have you had such a conversation with all the organisations? I am sure that you have engaged with them throughout the bill process, but bodies such as RSPB Scotland, Nourish Scotland and the Landworkers Alliance have all given the committee incredibly similar submissions on exactly that point. Have you already started engaging them in discussion to explain your approach? In some cases, it sounds as though all that is needed is clarification; in others, there is disagreement over policy intention, which is fine. Have you engaged with them to clarify those points?

I understand and entirely share the motivation behind the amendment, but will it lead to duplication? As I understand it, under the current system, victims already have the opportunity to make a victim impact statement before the case is referred to the children’s hearings system. As a result, the panel will already be in possession of it. If I understand correctly, the amendment essentially repeats that process, and I am concerned about the impact on victims of having to recount their trauma repeatedly, after being given the opportunity to do so and given that the panel itself should already be in possession of that statement.

Apologies—I probably should have intervened and posed this point to Roz McCall. I would be grateful if she could address it when summing up. The point applies to amendments 189 and 190 to some extent, too, but I am more interested in amendments 18 and 19.

The Scotland Act 1998 enshrines the prosecutorial independence of the Lord Advocate, which is an important principle, but amendments 18 and 19 seem to undermine or erode that—or at least narrow it. I would be keen for Roz McCall to expand a bit on that point. To me, that raises issues of competence in relation to the Scotland Act 1998 and the principle of the Lord Advocate’s independence, on which there has been a growing debate in the Parliament over the past couple of years.

I was going to ask the same question as Ruth Maguire.