���˿���

I will speak to my amendment 186, and I confirm my support for all the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 186 would require the code of sustainable and regenerative agriculture to include an assessment of the potential impact that the reintroduction of species might have on food-producing land. The amendment is designed to protect productive land from any negative impacts of reintroduced species. It seeks to further safeguard food-producing land to ensure that the right land is used for the right purpose.

I acknowledge that the reintroduction of species aims to improve Scotland’s natural environment and biodiversity. However, the reintroduction of certain species into our natural environment must be done in a responsible manner. A scientific and evidence-based approach should always be taken, to ensure that species are properly introduced. That is important in rural areas, where the concerns of farmers and land managers must be taken seriously, particularly where the reintroduction of certain species could harm livestock or have other negative impacts on food-producing land.

I reiterate the call of my colleague Murdo Fraser, who, in a portfolio question time session on rural affairs, asked about the possibility of there being future compensation schemes for crops and grazing land lost to production.

I visited IndiNature in Jedburgh, which makes organic insulation products from hemp. Can Kate Forbes’s amendment be interpreted as including support for growing hemp, which is a non-food crop? A number of farmers are looking to grow hemp, and it is quite an important aspect of agricultural rotation—that is, non-food production.

On Tim Eagle’s amendment 143, some of those crops are really important for rotation. For example, peas and beans are particularly good for nitrogen fixing. What is it that the Scottish Greens do not like about the natural fixing of essential nutrients? Would you rather see artificial nitrogen put on the fields?

Amendment 166 would require the Scottish ministers to define what is considered to be in the public interest. A clear definition of what public interest means is required. Although there is a clear and accepted definition of public good, there are outputs and outcomes that do not meet that definition but could be deemed to be in the public interest, such as high-quality food production.

I support all the other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 166.

Amendment 134 would require support to be provided through multiyear budgets and ring-fenced funding. It is an important amendment that would give farmers and producers much-needed certainty about future support. Farms and crofts often work to long-term plans, which require certainty about future support. Farmers need to be able to plan for the future. The bill must therefore include a commitment to multiyear ring-fenced funding. We know that many stakeholders, such as NFU Scotland, Scottish Land & Estates and the food and agriculture stakeholders task force, support that.

The NFUS is calling for the five-year funding framework that the UK Government delivered for agriculture from 2019 to date to be repeated by the next UK Government, and the Agriculture Act 2020 sets in legislation the detail of a seven-year funding cycle. It is possible and realistic to have a commitment covering more than one year in the bill.

Amendment 136 would enshrine in the bill that any future peatland restoration or agroforestry support schemes would be accessible to tenant farmers. The amendment would help to remove barriers that tenant farmers often face when applying for support. I have been contacted by the Scottish Crofting Federation, which would also like crofters to be able to access some of those funding schemes. It is possible that we might end up working together on that amendment, cabinet secretary.

Amendment 138 would place a statutory duty on the Scottish Government to consult all relevant stakeholders on future agricultural support. Again, it is a very important amendment and is supported by key farming lobby groups. Similar to other amendments, and as noted in the stage 1 report, amendment 138 would provide much-needed reassurance to stakeholders by requiring a statutory consultation on future agricultural support.

I look forward to hearing colleagues’ explanations of other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 134.

Can the cabinet secretary direct me and my colleagues to the conditions that are set out, and the definition of “the public interest” test, whereby the Government agency would refuse to pay support? Where is that?

I will press my amendment, which is supported by the NFUS, SLE, FAST and others. Despite what the cabinet secretary has said, it is right that a definition of “the public interest” is brought forward in relation to section 10. The Government has the ability to do that and to allow Parliament to scrutinise it. It is important to give people clarity on the outcomes.

I was going to support Edward Mountain’s amendment 169, on removing section 10, although it is a bit of an oxymoron, but it sounds as though he is not going to move it. I am happy to support the other amendments in the group.

Will the member take an intervention?

I have no further comments, and I seek to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 204, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 29 agreed to.

Schedule 2—Repeals and minor modifications

Amendments 18 and 19 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 30 and 31 agreed to.

Section 32—Index of defined terms

Amendment 205 not moved.

Section 32 agreed to.

Sections 33 and 34 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

I am a little bit confused by Ariane Burgess’s amendments. Innovation and technology are supporting farmers to make efficiencies and cut their costs. I am very much supportive of ensuring that labour is part of the whole farming and agricultural landscape, and we know that it is, as it supports rural communities, but are you saying that, in order to get support, farmers need to increase the number of people they employ, even if they do not need them?