Chamber and committees

Thanks for those answers. I am pleased that Roxane touched on the fact that we need to look not only at hectares but at other benefits of peatland, which previous committees certainly heard about. They also heard about the concerns and the length of time that it would take to develop, approve and deliver those projects. I know that the peatland action project has stepped up to the mark. At what stage of the processes are delays most likely to occur at the moment? What practical changes could we implement right now that would have the greatest impact on speeding up those projects?

I want to go back to the question that is always asked: why replace a code of practice with guidance? Can you point to one example where the welfare of horses and so on would be better protected under non-statutory guidance than through a code of practice that would be subject to the scrutiny of this Parliament?

I get that, but the point of the question is, why move away from a code of practice that this Parliament gets the opportunity to scrutinise? We also get to see the consultation responses, which are lacking in relation to the guidance. There is no indication of whether those who are looking after horses, donkeys or whatever responded to the consultation on the guidance. We do not know who was asked, whether anybody responded or whether those responses were supportive or otherwise. What is the difference about having guidance that makes you go for that rather than a code of practice?

Convener, when it comes to being concise, you might have picked the wrong member, but I will ask my question.

I am really pleased that we are talking about redistribution again, because it is really important and it is missing from the plan. As we have heard, the smallest businesses account for a very small share of the total support but they are disproportionately important when it comes to sustaining fragile communities and crofting. We heard from Kate Rowell about the importance of smaller producers in local food production and the importance of active land management to biodiversity and climate change.

Rather than focusing solely on redistributing funds, whether that involves capping or front loading, should the Government instead consider a distinct exemption or a light touch for smaller businesses and crofts? Should it then design support for the remainder of the sector that is based on clear expectations on productivity, climate change and active farming? In effect, should the Government take the 30 or 40 per cent of claimants of a very small part of the budget and exempt them from single farm plans and a lot of the compliance, to make sure that they can be sustainable?

That is a question for Steven Thomson and Mike Robinson, who touched on the issue as well.

I guess I get a bit frustrated. While it is all very good—we have had decades of consultation and working groups, and I know Steven Thomson has been involved throughout the process—we have a final plan that largely resembles what we had before. It is a tartan CAP—it is just a Scottish version of the common agricultural policy, with very few genuinely new policies. Even the calving index is something that the Government got wrong initially, because it did not recognise the issues with crofters and small farmers, so that is not an overriding success.

Although we have had the farming for 1.5°C inquiry and the farmer-led climate change groups, those have, in practice, had little effect on the plan. We are sitting here today—and the committee has had three sessions already—without one witness suggesting that the plan is fit for purpose. That would suggest that those decades of consultation and groups have actually failed, to some extent.

I guess my question is this: what confidence is there that, as we move forward, LAND or the agriculture policy development group will change anything? Is there any chance that some of the changes that have been discussed here, which need to happen before we see a draft of the next plan, are going to happen? Are the groups that are being put in place actually going to deliver?

I believe that we were told that the framework bill did not have any meat on its bones simply because it was a framework bill. Then the legislation said something about a rural support plan, but all that we are seeing now is a tick-the-box exercise. The plan might have been delivered to Parliament, but it actually does not deliver anything at all.

Steven, I am going to put you on the spot. You have continuously argued for clearer milestones, stronger rural outcomes and more transparent policy design, but this plan does not deliver any of that. We can draw a contrast between the support plan in front of us and other rural policy approaches, such as the national islands plan. The rural and islands insight report that you were involved in clearly indicated issues with ageing populations, workforce shortages, decline in agricultural participation, childcare, housing pressures, poor transport—all those sorts of things. The support plan speaks about thriving rural communities, but it provides absolutely zero detail of what a thriving rural community is. Does the rural support plan, as it sits at the moment, have far too much emphasis on continuing existing support structures? If we maintain the structures of the current payment system and continue to lose young families, workers and new entrants, will the plan be regarded as a successful agricultural transition?

The C word might be missing, but, on my bingo card, I have already ticked most of the topics that we thought we would cover where there is an issue. We have heard that, although the plan might have a vision, there is no clear indication of how Scotland will move away from the current CAP-derived system to a system that is capable of delivering sustainable food production, climate mitigation or adaptation, or biodiversity reversal.

09:45

Last week, we heard that there is still no clear definition of active farming or agricultural activity, which are obviously incredibly important. We also heard—Ed Barker touched on this—that there is a lot of inertia built into the process and that the stability that we keep hearing the Government say that it wants to deliver will lead to stagnation.

When it comes to defining terms such as active farming and agricultural activity, does the Government have a desire to avoid disruption? Is it using that as an excuse for delaying difficult decisions that will allow us to deliver some of the vision that everybody has bought into?

As most members will be aware, the Government has announced that a review is to be commissioned into considering land management practices that might be used to prevent or hinder the spread of wildfires. Although I appreciate that the SSI that is before us probably does not provide the right mechanism for imposing a pause or halt to the introduction of the licensing scheme—which has, indeed, been paused already—I think that we need to send a message to the Government that there is still concern among land managers that the current licensing scheme is not fit for purpose. At a time when crofters and farmers are expected to play a bigger role in preventing wildfires, it would be appropriate for the Government to consider pausing the licensing scheme. I appreciate that the regulations do not provide the mechanism to do that, but this is an opportunity to call on the Government to rethink it.

Yes, thanks. I will go back to funding. Everybody recognises that agricultural funding has been eroded during the past few years. The current funding is about £16 million less than last year. We keep hearing that the original funding amounted to £660 million, but that amount was based on the legacy CAP and it was negotiated two decades ago. Now, we have a biodiversity strategy, a climate change strategy and pressures related to resilience. Not only do farmers have to be well placed to mitigate and adapt to climate change, but they are also affected daily by issues such as flooding, blue tongue and other diseases, drought and pressures from across the world that affect prices.

The Government says that it is interested in food security, but the £660 million is being diluted because more money is going to climate mitigation, biodiversity and whatever—and rightly so, if that is the direction that we want to go in. However, ministers seem unwilling to be honest about the trade-offs. There was a fixed budget, and now we hear that it is fantastic that we have multiyear, ringfenced money. However, the amount goes down in real terms every year, so it is actually bad news that we have to deal with, potentially, £660 million, with limited changes to that amount until 2030.

Does the current funding profile address the urgency of Scotland’s climate and biodiversity crisis and also the need for food security and our ability to produce food for Scotland and the UK?

The definitions of “active farmer” and “agricultural activity” are important, though, because they could be the be-all and end-all in relation to who receives public funding, given the way in which the plan is currently drafted.