���˿���

Amendment 72 seeks to ensure that people who claim support know the expectations that are placed on them in return for that support before they apply. The amendment ensures that the reasons why support could be refused or recovered in the public interest are clear to all those who apply.

I believe that there are times when Government should recover support that has been paid. I therefore cannot support Edward Mountain’s amendment 169, but I believe that the reasons for doing so must be understood.

I have nothing to add. I have listened to what the cabinet secretary has said and will not press amendment 82.

Amendment 82, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 13 and 83 not moved.

Section 17 agreed to.

Section 18—Processing of information

Amendments 14 and 15 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 184 not moved.

Section 18, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 19 to 25 agreed to.

After section 25

On that matter, would there be a delay? If you are using that power, there are pretty exceptional market conditions and people are quite concerned. If there was a delay between the initial three months and an extension of that scheme under the powers allowed, that could cause issues for those who are really dependent on that support.

Amendment 73 seeks to extend the length of time for which exceptional market conditions support can continue. Although it would be hoped that such occurrences would be rare and short lived, they could run beyond the three months that is allowed for in the bill. My amendment would increase that time to six months. In doing so, it would not prescribe that every scheme would run for six months; it would simply allow it to do so should the need arise. I hope that the power would very seldom require to be used, but it is needed to provide stability in difficult times.

I move amendment 73.

Given what the cabinet secretary has said and the reassurance that she has given, I will not waste the committee’s time by moving amendment 89.

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.

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.