���˿���

Okay. So, you have given it no thought.

Amendment 158, in the name of Colin Smyth, reflects some stakeholders’ concerns about the capping of higher tiers that allow for carbon sequestration and nature restoration, which might mean that those public goods are less well funded. They argue that, in the higher tiers, public policy benefits increase as payments increase, meaning that capping the limit in those tiers might have unintended consequences. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary can assure us that capping will not reduce public goods and will indicate how we can maximise public benefit through carbon sequestration and nature restoration in a way that allows every holding to contribute and play its part.

My amendment 69 seeks to use redistribution to ensure that small-scale producers can afford to operate. We know that small producers provide benefits to local food production and that their methods are often more carbon neutral and nature friendly than those of others. I spoke last week about the uneven distribution of funding and about how the most challenged areas receive the least, while the least challenged areas receive the most. Many small producers cannot afford to pay themselves a living wage. We must ensure that all agricultural work is fairly paid, but we must focus on small producers to encourage them to stay in business.

I will speak to amendment 53 and the other amendments in my name. I have heard what the cabinet secretary said about herbs and machinery. I accept the reassurance that she gave about machinery rings, which was the aim of that amendment. I will come back at stage 3 with an amendment with regard to herbs.

Amendment 145 is consequential to Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 144. I support her amendment in so far as it relates to venison farming. However, like others, I do not believe that wild deer should be supported through agricultural subsidies. My amendment, like Tim Eagle’s, seeks to restrict that support to venison farming.

On amendment 55, again, I hear what the cabinet secretary said and I will take her up on her offer to discuss how we can try to stop the wrong trees being planted in the wrong place and having valuable farmland lost to tree planting.

Amendment 61 relates to the section on greenhouse gases and climate change, ensuring that actions stipulated in other plans in this policy area, such as the climate adaptation plan, have influence on the legislation. The amendment tries to provide for joined-up policy making.

Amendment 63 adds a reference to

“the water holding capacity of land”

and is designed to look at flood prevention and protection. We need to look at ways in which to prevent flooding, given climate change. Farmers and crofters have a role to play, but we have to work with them. We cannot risk their crops and livelihoods being wiped out, so we must plan flood responses with them and ensure that Government assistance is available to do that.

Ariane Burgess’s amendment 62 causes me some concern. I am afraid that we may end up returning to the days of slipper farmers, when people were paid to do nothing productive on their land in return for public funding. It did not bring any benefit at all—quite the opposite. It had a negative impact on nature.

The other amendments in this group seek to add items to schedule 1, and I will support those where appropriate.

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 76 will ensure that, before making regulations under section 13, the Scottish ministers must consult such persons as they consider

“to be interested in or affected by provisions in this section”,

rather than simply those the Government deems appropriate.

Amendment 80 will ensure that grazing committees and, indeed, other co-ops can be collectively supported. Many crofting activities are carried out as part of a collective. Currently, it is difficult to access funding on that basis. It is important to allow individuals who are part of a grazing committee or co-op to apply for support in their own right under a different claim—obviously claiming only once for any activity. That would allow them more access to environmental funding when, collectively, they would be better able to compete against large land holdings, for which support is dependent on the number of features protected. Those with small crofts or farms have often been locked out of environmental support projects because of that, and amendment 80 attempts to right that wrong.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 171 seeks to do something similar to my amendment 76, and I will listen to the thoughts of the committee and the cabinet secretary. I hope that there will be support for one of those two amendments.

Amendment 81 is consequential on amendment 80.

I move amendment 76.

The cabinet secretary is surely aware that an awful lot of trees are being planted in the wrong places, on good arable land. We need to do something about that. Obviously, we cannot do everything about it through the bill, but we can stop public money going to support that activity. Will the cabinet secretary meet me prior to stage 3 to try to find a way of stopping public money being used to support that wrong activity?

Colin Smyth sends his apologies. He has to attend another committee meeting, so I have agreed to speak to his amendments.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 135 would require support schemes to be consistent with the rural support plan. The Government has a responsibility to spend money effectively and in the public interest. A link with the rural support plan would allow it to demonstrate a clear rationale for the use of public money. However, the amendment would also provide flexibility and allow for departure from the plan, should there be reasons for that, but with the requirement that ministers set out those reasons and why the support remained consistent with the bill’s overall objectives.

My amendment 50 would ensure that the Scottish Government would have to consult before making regulations under section 4 to amend schedule 1. Schedule 1 lays out the things that can be supported under the bill. Although members may, at this stage, seek to add items that can be supported, the Government will be able to add other items in the future. I will not repeat my arguments for greater scrutiny. However, amendment 50 would ensure that, when items were added or, indeed, taken away, there would be effective consultation with those who would be affected by any changes that were made to the schedule.

I support Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 134. Farming is not a short-term business, and security of support is necessary to enable farmers and crofters to provide the public goods that we all require. I believe that the other amendments in the group could also strengthen the bill.

I have taken on board the assurances that the cabinet secretary has provided, so I will seek to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 73, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 12 agreed to.

Section 13—Regulations about support