Chamber and committees

There will be a division.

For

Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Against

Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)

I remind members that amendments 49 and 50 are direct alternatives.

Amendment 49 not moved.

Amendment 50 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 50 disagreed to.

Amendment 108 moved—[Douglas Lumsden].

The question is, that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 52 disagreed to.

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 54 disagreed to.

I call Jackie Dunbar to speak to amendment 160 and the other amendments in the group.

I am going to intervene here. I am sure that everyone knows the processes of the Parliament far better than I do and will give me an opinion on whether I have interpreted them properly or not, but the idea of the stage 2 debate is that we go through the debate on the principles, and the member who is moving the lead amendment speaks to it and the other amendments in the group, and there is then a debate at that stage. The minister comes in if they have not spoken already and responds to the member. Then, the member sums up at the end. That is not another area for debate.

I gently remind members, for fear of being chided about my understanding of parliamentary process, to try to stick to procedure in the hope that we will get through this before day 6. I would love to extend the process to day 6, if members want to debate for that long, but I do not think that that would be helpful in allowing time for further debate at stage 3.

I am going to push Mr Simpson to wind up on this group of amendments and we will see if we can move forward.

In my time in agriculture, I have learned that the best thing to do is to sit down and talk to your neighbour and listen to what advice they have to give you on what you are doing on the farm. That can include simple things about getting an easy calving, which could be a question of putting more iodine into the mineral mix to ensure that the calf is born quickly and that the cow cleanses. That is information that you can pick up from your neighbour, from their personal experience. My amendment 196 therefore specifies

“formal and informal CPD activities, including peer-to-peer learning”.

The Government sponsored peer-to-peer learning in the past, with suckler-cow groups and arable groups. Those were sensible ideas, and those groups got farmers together. There was good reason for doing that, apart from just learning. It meant that we all talked and understood our problems, and it addressed the issues of mental health that can occur on farms at difficult times.

Amendment 196 is a very simple amendment, and I am sure that it is the one that the cabinet secretary said she was going to support, because informal learning is important.

I understand the reason that Alasdair Allan has lodged amendment 192, which seeks to extend CPD out just beyond the farming family.

I have a problem with some of Mr Leonard’s comments about apprenticeships. I agree that farmers would love to have apprenticeships, but how the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board is set up specifically excludes apprenticeships, on the basis that apprentices must be paid the same wage as a normal farm worker. However, they cannot do the same job. For example, an apprentice aged 16 cannot drive a large tractor unless they have passed a tractor test, they cannot operate the handler, they cannot drive other machinery and they are precluded from doing other things. There is a real problem there, which I would be delighted to discuss with Mr Leonard, because I, too, want to see more apprenticeships on farms, but the legislation is against it.

I could go on and on, but I am hopeful that the cabinet secretary will be mindful of the importance of peer-to-peer learning, rather than direct top-down learning, as I do not think that it would be helpful for politicians to tell farmers how to do their job better.

I speak to amendment 183 with some trepidation, because the last time that I questioned the Government on enforcement and regulation, I received—surprisingly—a whole farm inspection and a 100 per cent cattle inspection within three months of doing so. I am sure that there was no connection, but we will see whether the same thing happens this time.

I am glad to say that I did not fall foul of the system, but there is genuine fear among farmers when it comes to enforcement and the way in which it is carried out. I have particular concerns about certain provisions in section 16, particularly section 16(2)(i), which relates to monetary penalties. The problem with the European Union with regard to single farm payments was that, if we made a minor error, we got a monstrous fine. For too long in my professional life, when filling out single farm payment claims for clients, I noticed that the Government itself had made mistakes, for which there were no fines and as a result of which farmers were adversely affected.

Amendment 183 seeks to test the water, as it were—or the Government—by proposing that appeals be made within three months. I am trying to see whether the Government agrees that it is reasonable for a farmer to appeal within three months, and if it accepts the amendment, whether it accepts that that appeal must be determined within three months, too. After all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I will be moving and pressing amendment 183, but I want to discuss the whole section with the cabinet secretary, as I have grave concerns that it will be very inequitable to people who inadvertently make a mistake when filling in a claim. There is just no flexibility in the system.

I move amendment 183.