���˿���

I appreciate the intent behind amendment 76, in the name of Rhoda Grant. The bill’s current drafting already commits the Scottish ministers to consulting appropriate persons, but the amendment signals more explicitly the commitment that I have already set out to co-developing the detail of support, which will come before the Parliament in secondary legislation. I am therefore more than happy to support the amendment. However, purely because of my support for that amendment, I must ask the committee not to support amendment 171, as I do not think that it will be needed.

Amendment 80 specifies that grazing committees and co-operatives can claim support as a collective for joint projects, which, as Rhoda Grant has outlined, will be separate from individual support. There is absolutely no doubt that crofting common grazings play a really important role in collective action to mitigate and adapt to climate change, as well as in protecting and restoring nature. I also note that amendment 81 complements that by defining the phrase “grazing committee”. I strongly agree that we should be supporting grazing committees and co-operatives, and I am happy to do whatever is thought to be helpful to clarify that in the bill. For that reason, I welcome both of Rhoda Grant’s amendments and urge the committee to support them.

Amendment 76 agreed to.

Amendment 171 not moved.

A lot of important points have been raised today. I would also like to think that there are a lot of points of agreement around the table, given what we have heard so far and what I think we will hear when other amendments are spoken to.

First, I turn to the amendments in my name. Amendment 6 seeks to add “pig meat” to the list of products in paragraph 3(3) of schedule 1 to which Scottish ministers can provide particular support. That also includes support for ancillary purposes such as the packaging or distribution of the product. We are committed to supporting the pig sector, and enabling such support will give us more tools to do that.

Amendment 8 seeks to clarify that enterprises to which Scottish ministers might provide support in schedule 1 include

“co-operative societies and similar organisations.”

Agricultural co-operative societies make a vital contribution to our diverse agriculture industry and its diversity, and they are important for ensuring that we have innovation, sustainability, resilience and, ultimately, food security for Scotland and its rural communities.

Amendment 10 seeks to amend schedule 1 so as to give ministers as much flexibility as possible in providing support relating to research and development.

Amendment 11 seeks to amend paragraph 8(2) of schedule 1 to extend the range of ancillary activities for knowledge, innovation, education and training that can be supported to include the full range of purposes, as set out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 8(1) of the schedule. Including paragraph (8)(1)(d) extends the coverage of ancillary activities so as to include support in connection with research and development to

“support those living, working or operating in rural areas ... improve or support rural land (or land use), or ... improve or support the environment”.

I ask the committee to support amendments 6, 8, 10 and 11.

I will turn to some of the other amendments in the group. Amendment 140 clarifies that growing crops is an agricultural activity, including, in particular, the growing of energy and non-food crops. It recognises that energy crops are an increasingly important component of Scottish agriculture as a way of meeting our growing domestic demand for biomass feedstock. I appreciate the discussions and the points that have been made around the table today about competing pressures on land. We must always seek to balance the amount of sustainable domestic biomass production without significantly impacting wider land use needs and opportunities, including food production. I ask the committee to support amendment 140.

I hope that some of my comments will help to provide Tim Eagle with some of the clarification that he seeks with his amendments.

Section 7 enables us to make regulations about guidance. Regulations can provide for whether any particular guidance should be published or laid, whether any person should have regard to the guidance, the legal effect of not complying with it and the status of guidance in legal proceedings. We issue a lot of guidance, most of which can and should be administrative guidance only. It does not need to be laid or formally published and it can stand on its own terms. However, some guidance is more significant than that, which is why the power in section 7 is important. We have to be able to make rules about the important guidance, including about the cases where compliance with the guidance is relevant to some other question and cases where guidance should be admissible and have evidential value in legal proceedings.

On amendment 151, the code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture aims to provide guidance for farmers, crofters and land managers on how to deliver sustainable and regenerative practice. It is intended not to be prescriptive but to provide examples and good practice. It is also intended to be readily updated and added to as our practice and understanding of what works in those practices adjust over time.

In section 26, we set out that

“The Scottish Ministers must prepare and publish a document providing guidance on sustainable and regenerative agriculture”

and that, in doing so, we have to consult our industry and, of course, beyond that. The code is explicitly referred to in section 7 to make it clear that the guidance in the code is guidance for the purposes of the powers in that section. Removing that reference, as amendment 151 proposes, would not change the status of the guidance in the code, because it would still be guidance. That is why I encourage the committee not to support amendment 151.

Amendments 152 and 153 remove the flexibility for ministers to choose to simply publish guidance or to lay it before Parliament, or to do both. I thought that there would be merit in that flexibility, which is why the bill was drafted in that way, but I am more than happy to support amendments 152 and 153.

I am still not entirely clear what the issue is with amendment 154. The power in section 7 is relatively modest and technical. Any regulations that we make will, of course, be subject to scrutiny by the Parliament. I do not know whether Tim Eagle thinks that the power would be used to impose unfair burdens on farmers and crofters and that we would penalise them for not following guidance. I can clarify that that is not the case. It is certainly not what we have set out.

I will have to follow that up with my colleague Paul McLennan, the Minister for Housing, and discuss it with him, because I do not have that information in front of me at the moment. I could provide more information on that afterwards.

Ariane Burgess has articulated better than I could some of the issues with the amendment. I absolutely support the aspirations behind what Rachael Hamilton seeks to achieve, but the bill is not the appropriate place for it. The appropriate place would be discussions that we take forward on the good food nation plans.

As Rachael Hamilton highlighted, we discussed targets. Procurement is always a tricky area because there are so many things to consider between what is reserved and what is devolved. It is not an easy issue for us to fix. We have been considering the setting of targets and objectives through the good food nation plan. It is the first iteration of that plan, and it will develop as we get more data and more information that we can use to populate more targets and further objectives.

I ask the committee not to support amendment 200. Although I support the overall aspirations behind it, I think that discussions on the matter should take place as part of the development of the good food nation plans.

Absolutely. We are open to having a further discussion on that. By no means are we setting up a payment scheme here. The measures in the bill that we are discussing today will allow us potentially to provide support in the future. I hope that we will engage and have further discussion on that, and I am more than happy to pick that up with the member.

Amendment 141 seeks to amend paragraph 1 of schedule 1, which sets out examples of agricultural activities that might be supported by us in the future. As we have heard from Tim Eagle, the amendment adds “deer and game farming” to that list of agricultural activities. That is important, given the importance of both of those types of farming to a diverse agricultural industry, so I ask the committee to support amendment 141.

Amendment 142 seeks to add

“providing shelter to livestock ... reducing flood risk ... reducing soil loss”

and

“reducing risks to wader birds, including curlew”

among the “references to agriculture” in the bill. Support for those purposes is already covered by paragraphs 1 and 15 of schedule 1, but I am happy to support amendment 142.

Amendment 143 seeks to add

“cereals and oilseeds, peas and beans, other foraged crops”

among the “references to agriculture”. That provision is similar to amendment 140, which has been moved by Emma Roddick and which is more comprehensive than amendment 143. Given that, I would ask Tim Eagle not to move amendment 143.

Amendment 51 seeks to amend schedule 1, which sets out the range of support that can be provided for the production of agricultural products. The amendment expands the range of outcomes that support will achieve by adding support for the transition to sustainable land management. I am happy to support that amendment.

Amendment 52 seeks to amend schedule 1 by adding “wool” to the list of products in paragraph 3(3). Wool is an important and sustainable ancillary product of the agricultural industry. I ask the committee to support amendment 52.

Amendment 53 seeks to amend schedule 1 by adding “herbs” and “machinery”. I have no issue with adding herbs to the list of products that can be supported, but I have concerns similar to those that were raised by Ariane Burgess in relation to adding machinery to the list, as it is not an agricultural product. I should point out that it is already possible for us to provide support in respect of machinery under paragraph 7 of schedule 1. That would include investing in rural businesses and co-operatives, which would include support for machinery rings. I would ask Rhoda Grant not to move amendment 53, perhaps with a view to making a change to cover herbs at stage 3.

Amendment 7 seeks to add “poultry meat and eggs” to the list of products in paragraph 3(3) of schedule 1, and amendment 144 seeks to add “venison” to that list. The Government is committed to supporting the poultry, broiler, egg and venison sectors, so I ask the committee to support amendments 7 and 144.

Amendment 145 would amend paragraph 3(4) of schedule 1 to provide that people would not be able to be supported under the terms of paragraph 3(2) if they produced venison only as an “ancillary activity”. I do not believe that that change would support the venison sector, and I am not entirely sure of the reasoning behind the amendment, so I look forward to hearing more information about it. At the moment, though, I ask the committee not to support amendment 145.

Amendment 54 would amend schedule 1 to require that preference be given to those involved in “primary production activities” when assistance was provided under paragraph 4 for those producing or processing food. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of schedule 1 already provide for support for primary producers, and our support priorities will, of course, be set out in the rural support plan when we publish it in due course.

However, amendment 54 pre-empts the decisions that we will want to make with the sector as part of the co-development work that we are undertaking. Through that approach, we will work out when it is appropriate to give preference to primary producers and when it is not, for a legitimate reason. I will give an example to highlight some of the potential issues with the amendment. It could result in less support being available to food processors, despite the valuable contribution that they make to our Scottish food and drink industry, so I ask the committee not to support amendment 54.

Amendment 146 seeks to restrict the support that could be given in the future for creating new woodland. The Scottish ministers must already have regard to the forestry strategy when we exercise our functions in relation to sustainable forest management, and the strategy’s principles must be adhered to when we develop any forestry support, including any support that will be provided under the bill. The underlying principles behind amendment 146 would limit the support that we could provide, even if there was a good and legitimate reason for us to provide support, such as the protection of jobs in rural communities. However, I appreciate the overall objective that Ariane Burgess is trying to achieve, and I am keen to strengthen our commitment to creating more sustainable Scottish woodland, so I ask her not to move amendment 146, to allow me to consider the proposals further and work with her ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 55 seeks to amend paragraph 5(1)(c) of schedule 1 to restrict the types of available forestry support for agroforestry activities on arable land to only “hedges and wind breaks”. Although I completely understand the concerns that have led to the amendment being lodged, it would prevent agroforestry systems on all arable land, and some such land could be suitable for a mixed production approach. Paragraph 5(1)(c) provides support to farmers for the implementation of agroforestry systems, which are critical to integrating trees on farms while maintaining primary agricultural production and offering additional benefits to arable businesses, including through carbon capture, enhanced biodiversity and business diversification. Given that clarification, I hope that Rhoda Grant will not move amendment 55. If she does, I encourage the committee not to support it.

Section 6 will enable us to provide future support in different forms, such as grants, loans or guarantees, and it will also enable us to then put conditions on that support. It is deliberately broadly drafted to provide maximum flexibility and to enable the Government and Parliament to future proof the provisions introduced by the bill.

Amendments 202 and 203, in the name of Brian Whittle, seek to prioritise support for different activities. I have been consistently clear that there is no contradiction between high-quality food production and producing food in a way that works for climate and nature. Amendments 202 and 203 directly contradict that and fly in the face of what we have tried to set out. The powers in section 6 are already broad enough to enable us to prioritise

“primary production of food and drink products”

in the manner intended, if it is right to do so. I do not consider amendments 202 and 203 to be helpful additions to the bill, because they would probably confuse things rather than help understanding. I therefore ask the committee not to support them.

Amendment 66 would impose conditions on how we deliver future support. Although I understand the intention behind the amendment, which Rhoda Grant lodged, it does not work, because the purposes for which support can be provided extend far beyond land. Examples that highlight that are existing cross-compliance statutory management requirements, such as those that relate to animal health and welfare, food and feed, safety and traceability, and the requirements for the conservation of wild birds. There are also other examples. Those are all vital conditions for protecting animal and human health and the environment. Such measures cannot be restricted on the basis of farm size. That is why I encourage members not to support amendment 66.

I will come to Edward Mountain’s amendment 169, but I will cover the other amendments in the group first.

With regard to amendments 166 and 72, under the existing agricultural support scheme, conditions can be imposed that relate to quite a wide range of matters. Where conditions are not complied with, Scottish ministers can require the repayment of support, including with interest. In rare cases, it might be right to refuse, or to recover, support that is otherwise due, even if the standard conditions for support are met.

I hope that we would all agree that it is appropriate to take forward such provisions into a new financial support framework. Section 10 therefore provides ministers with the ability to

“refuse to provide support if they consider that it is not in the public interest for a person to receive it”

or to recover support that has already been paid.

They have to do so, however, in accordance with the regulations that will be set out under section 10. Those regulations will make provision in respect of the meaning of “the public interest” for that purpose. Any regulations that we bring forward would be subject to scrutiny by Parliament. It might, for example, be in the public interest to be able to refuse to pay support for animal welfare purposes to a person who has an animal cruelty conviction or to recover previously granted support from such a person.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 166 and Rhoda Grant’s amendment 72 would require any regulations to make provision in respect of the public interest. However, their proposed changes are not necessary, because section 10 already provides the powers that we need for that purpose. Rather than providing clarity, therefore, those amendments could make the scope of the power to make regulations less clear.

With regard to amendment 73, committee members will, no doubt, be aware that the three-month period that we have specified in the bill mirrors what is in the UK Agriculture Act 2020. Three months seems to be a reasonable period for an exceptional power to intervene in agricultural markets, especially as section 12(8) of the bill provides a means for the extension of that declaration and section 12(9) provides for

“making ... another ... declaration”,

which may relate

“in whole or part to the same exceptional market conditions”

if that proves to be necessary.

I think that the existing provisions that we have set out are proportionate. They also offer the appropriate means by which the period can be extended when necessary.

I was not going to make an intervention at this point, convener—I did not know whether you were turning to me. Sorry—I was jumping ahead.