���˿���

I have just done that.

The small producers support fund is tiny and does not provide the amount of support that is required in that area. Will the cabinet secretary expand on how that could be developed to provide more support—and greater equity of support—for small producers?

In seeking to ensure that the code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture is a regulation, amendments 84 to 86 would change the way in which the code is produced and consulted on and scrutinised by the Parliament. The bill is enabling legislation, and the codes and associated provisions are where the information underpinning the funding and the conditions attached to that funding are laid out. The provisions must be scrutinised to ensure that funding is not misused or needlessly withheld.

I move amendment 84.

Amendment 66 seeks to ensure that any conditionality is

“proportionate to the size of land where the activity is taking place.”

The legislation will give funding support and will rightly impose conditions on that support. Amendment 66 seeks to ensure that that conditionality is proportionate to the size of the enterprise concerned. I recognise that there might be better ways of doing that, so I will listen carefully to any comments.

I am supportive of Brian Whittle’s amendments in this group.

My amendment 66 does not seek to do what the cabinet secretary suggests. A lot of the conditions that could easily be met by large farms with lots of employees cannot be met by small farmers or crofters—single-handed businesses. Will the cabinet secretary reassure me that the conditions that are placed on any support will be proportionate to the size and scale of the operation?

Amendment 82 would ensure that information about the support provided, its purpose and the amount of support that is given must be published. This is public money, and it is in the public interest to have transparency about the levels of support that are given.

Amendment 83 seeks to ensure that such a report must also include progress towards the objectives of the bill and that that information should be broken down into the tiers in which the Government provides support.

Transparency is essential when public money is being spent, and I hope that amendments 82 and 83 gain support from the committee. I also support the other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 82.

Sustainable and regenerative agriculture is included in the bill as a primary aim, yet it is not defined in the bill, and stakeholders were quite clear that they would prefer it to be. If it is a primary aim of the bill, the cabinet secretary should surely not be treating it as an optional extra that people can do or not do. Making the code a regulation would mean that there would have to be consultation on it, which would ensure that everyone would have an input. People could be given a suite of options that they could carry out—there would be no need for a prescriptive approach whereby certain things had to be done by everybody—which would ensure that nothing was missed and that people would understand what was required of them in order to access funding.

Therefore, I press amendment 84.

My amendment 77 would ensure that regulations regarding the provision of support are made under the affirmative procedure. I believe that, when we pass enabling legislation, the subsequent secondary legislation must be scrutinised.

Amendment 87 would ensure that the code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture is subject to affirmative procedures for that same reason; as is the case for amendment 90, on regulations for continuing professional development.

All those amendments would ensure parliamentary scrutiny on regulations and ensure that ministers consulted before regulating in those areas.

Other amendments in the group seek to increase the scrutiny of the legislation that will flow from the bill, and I am supportive of that. Tim Eagle’s amendment 172 is like my amendment 77, but I believe that mine is the better amendment.

Amendment 20 includes food security in the bill as part of the overarching objectives. There are several reasons for that. As we have seen with the war in Ukraine, such events—indeed, world events—can hamper our access to food.

Amendment 21 deals with local food production. We know that food miles create carbon. Therefore, the closer we are to food security and the fewer food miles we use, the better things are. We also know that access to locally produced food is more sustainable and cost effective for communities. Those two amendments mean that the objective in section 1(b) would read: “food security, and the production of high-quality food access to locally produced food for every person in Scotland.”

Amendment 26 would insert a new overarching objective to ensure that rural businesses have sufficient funds and resources to enable them to provide fair work conditions. We often hear from crofters and small farm enterprises that it is impossible for them to make a living from their agricultural activity. That is in part because of the unequal way in which we currently distribute support funding. I hope that later amendments will go some way towards changing that. It is often the smaller enterprises that sequestrate more carbon and provide higher natural benefits. Therefore, when distributing support funding, we should look to provide a fairer income for those small businesses.

Amendment 27 recognises the carbon and nature benefits of small crofts and small farms, and it seeks to ensure that future support recognises that and provides them with adequate support. Currently, producers on less than 3 hectares—specifically those in horticulture—are excluded from support. Although the small producers pilot fund is welcome, it has been allocated only £1 million in 2024. There are 20,000 small producers, of whom only 7,000 are registered for rural payments. They receive, on average, £143 per year per hectare for businesses under 30 hectares, whereas every hectare of region 1 land receives £223 per hectare a year. That is simply unfair, and the new scheme needs to address that. Small and diverse agricultural units can deliver high land productivity at levels that are well above those delivered by larger-scale monocropping. They also store more carbon and have a higher nature value—all things that we should be supporting.

With regard to the other amendments in the group, I am puzzled by Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 94—I cannot understand why we should not be aiming for high-quality food. I understand what she is trying to do with amendment 97, which is very similar to my amendments.

I am also puzzled by Ariane Burgess’s amendment 24. The bill is about the distribution of farm subsidies. If that funding is more widely distributed, it could damage the industry and, with it, our push towards net zero. Therefore, I do not think that I can support that amendment, but I am happy to listen to her reasoning in that regard. I am also puzzled by amendment 25. Again, I will listen with interest to see what is meant by it.

I have a lot of sympathy for Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 96 but, because it would knock out my amendments, I will not be able to support it.

I support Colin Smyth’s amendments in this group.

Amendment 26 is framed in order to encourage the distribution of support in a way that allows certain people to make a living. There are people working on the land who are producing food or providing public goods in relation to carbon and nature restoration, but who cannot make a living and are being forced out of business. Amendment 26 was designed to ensure fairer distribution of funds so that those very necessary and welcome businesses can continue to thrive.