Chamber and committees

Absolutely. The on-going oversight and the parliamentary scrutiny are important. We would have to set out whether we intended to continue that support if we needed to, and we would do that in good time or before the deadline approached. What we have set out in the bill as drafted enables us to continue to do all that, but it also provides for parliamentary scrutiny of the use of those powers, which is important. If the committee supported the amendment, it would remove some of that scrutiny, which is why I ask the committee not to support the amendment.

I have already said that section 10 provides us with the powers, but we would have to bring forward the meaning of “the public interest” in regulations. I cannot produce a definition, because we have not yet introduced those regulations.

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.

We are not cutting across the competences of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. That is still its remit and responsibility, and we are not changing its powers with the bill. I ask the committee to accept amendment 5.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 130 reflects a change that was proposed by amendment 129, which I also oppose, not least because I do not think that it has the intended effect. For the reasons that I explained in relation to amendment 129, I ask members to reject amendment 130.

I turn to amendment 131. Scotland shares the EU’s founding principles and core values and, through the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021, is already committed to maintaining alignment with EU laws and policy, where that is practicable. Aligning the Scottish Government’s future policy with the objectives and policy developments of CAP 2023-27, where practicable, ensures that, if Scotland has the opportunity to re-enter the EU in the future, it will be in a position to do so.

I appreciate that that is in direct contrast with the aims of Rachael Hamilton, who wishes to continue to impose on the people of Scotland the outcome of a Brexit that we did not vote for and that is proving disastrous for Scotland’s economy and society. However, it is important that we take what steps we can to mirror what may develop in the EU, not least to ensure that we can continue to trade there. I therefore encourage the committee to reject amendment 131.

I understand and share the motivation behind Rhoda Grant’s amendment 43, and that of Brian Whittle’s amendment 44. High-quality nutritious food that is locally and sustainably produced is key to our economic, environmental and social wellbeing and our health. That is why one objective in the bill is

“the production of high-quality food”.

As drafted, the bill commits ministers to have regard to

“any other statutory duty ... relating to agriculture or the environment”.

As we have touched on, that will include the good food nation plans. That will ensure consideration in the rural support plan of any proposals and policies that are in the good food nation plan. The bill will ensure that farmers, crofters and land managers have the right support to contribute to our good food nation ambitions and local food strategy.

Similarly, as drafted, the bill already involves consideration of the objectives of a plan that is produced under section 1 of the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022. Although I absolutely acknowledge the positive intent of amendment 44, I do not believe that it is required. Neither is amendment 43 necessary. Having reassured both Rhoda Grant and Brian Whittle, I hope that they will not move their respective amendments. If they do, I encourage the committee to reject them.

Amendment 45 would require the Scottish ministers to have regard to

“any other financial support provided by the Scottish Government to agriculture and rural communities”

when preparing or amending a rural support plan. The effect of that amendment is unclear. If, for example, we give support to a young farmer for continuing professional development, do we have to take into account their bursary or free tuition for an initial qualification? The amendment could also mean that a community that gets a grant from the Scottish land fund to purchase land might not then be eligible for support from a future LEADER-type scheme that could help to build the capacity of that community organisation to best manage its assets.

I hope that those examples have illustrated why amendment 45 could be problematic. We need to be wary of unintended consequences. For that reason, I encourage the committee to reject amendment 45.

I accept the premise of amendment 46, as I understand that land and agriculture are inherently linked—not least because I have portfolio responsibility for both areas. However, land is already covered in the reference to “environment”, and we are seeking to be more explicit in our references to “land” through other amendments. For that reason, I encourage the committee to reject Rhoda Grant’s amendment 46.

I fully agree with the intent behind Emma Harper’s amendment 47 and I am happy to support it. The Scottish Government understands the importance of food security and the interest in the issue from members of the committee as well as our wider stakeholders. Amendment 47 would ensure that ministers have regard to

“the need for sustainable food systems and supply chains in delivering food security”

when we prepare or update a rural support plan.

I am happy to support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 48, and I hope that the committee will support it, too. Small producers, tenant farmers, crofters and agricultural co-operative societies make a vital contribution to our diverse agricultural industry, and diversity is important to ensuring innovation, sustainability, resilience and, ultimately, food security for Scotland and its rural communities. Amendment 48 supports that and seeks to require the Scottish ministers to have regard to

“the benefits of a diverse and resilient agricultural sector including small producers, tenant farmers, crofters and agricultural co-operative societies”

when preparing or amending their rural support plan.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 49 would add a requirement to consult a range of “relevant persons”, and provides a wide list of those persons and organisations. I absolutely understand the intention behind and desire for that amendment, which is to ensure that we consult widely on issues. We already do that and will absolutely continue to do that. The Scottish Government also has a statutory requirement to carry out a range of consultations with public bodies in different circumstances as well as impact assessments in a wide range of circumstances.

As I have already talked about at length today, the co-developed nature of our future agricultural support framework ensures that we are constantly engaging with rural partners. We also have the agriculture reform implementation oversight board, which is supported by an academic advisory panel, to ensure that we take an evidence-based approach to our future proposals.

The route map that I have talked about is designed to provide our farmers, crofters, land managers and the general public with information on what we are planning when and how we will do that. The process of secondary legislation that will be required to make those future proposals a reality has requirements built in through impact assessments, including the strategic environmental assessment.

I have already set out my intention to introduce a more robust package on the rural support plan that will include detail of our continued agricultural reform programme engagement. That will include details of who and how we must consult. I will carefully consider Colin Smyth’s amendment and the bodies that he listed as part of that. I ask Colin Smyth not to press his amendment 130 and to allow me to work with him to bring forward something ahead of stage 3. If amendment 130 is agreed to today, I might wish to come back with some revised wording at stage 3, but I would be happy to engage with members on that.

I appreciate the concerns that members have set out regarding the level of scrutiny of some of the enabling powers in the bill and the desire to see more details about our intentions to bring forward the secondary legislation. I am also grateful for the report of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which broadly supported the proposed procedural treatment for legislation to be brought forward under the bill.

Amendment 132 would require the Scottish ministers to publish a timetable and further details of regulations made under the act as “soon as practicable” after royal assent. I have spoken at length, today and in the stage 1 debate, about my commitment to co-developing future schemes, and I would not want to pre-empt or rush that co-development in order to publish such a timetable.

The agricultural route map, which was updated earlier this year, outlines the support that remains available to continue to provide stability for farmers and crofters as that future support is co-designed. It also provides information and guidance on the phased approach to introducing the new support framework and on when the industry can expect new support to be made available. I will, of course, continue to update the route map as we move through that process.

It would also be my intention to provide Parliament with as much information and notice as possible on many of the proposed statutory instruments at various points once the bill is passed. I understand completely the need to enable Parliament and its committees to prepare their work programmes, and I do not think that surprises in relation to that work would be in anybody’s interest. I hope that that reassures members and encourages them not to support the amendment.

In relation to amendment 139, the bill is a framework bill and we expect to make a significant number of regulations during the delivery phase. An affirmative instrument would require significantly more resource and support than a negative one, and scrutiny for the enabling powers in the bill has been set at a level that will help us to deliver the substantial change that is needed.

Any change to the list of purposes of the bill is expected to be modest in scope and to come about following engagement with the sector and stakeholders as part of the co-design process of future schemes, which, as I continue to reiterate, we are fully committed to. Therefore, I still consider that it would be proportionate for that power to be subject to the negative procedure, so I do not support Tim Eagle’s amendment 139.

Section 7 provides for ministers to be able to make negative regulations about guidance—for example, requiring that specified guidance is laid before Parliament, or that decision makers must have regard to particular guidance. Amendment 156 would require any regulations that are made under section 7 to be subject to the affirmative procedure. I do not think that that would be proportionate, particularly in the case of minor changes to guidance. I therefore ask the committee to reject amendment 156.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 168 would change the parliamentary procedure for regulations that are made under section 10 from negative to affirmative. The circumstances in which it might be appropriate to refuse or recover support vary widely. For example, it might be appropriate to refuse support to a person with a relevant conviction, such as in relation to support of livestock activities where the person has been convicted of an animal cruelty offences. When ministers make regulations for such purposes, it is important that we do so timeously and without delay, as facts and events emerge. It is vital that we ensure that public funds are being appropriately allocated, but we also recognise that refusal or recovery of funds can have a significant impact on a business. It is important that the regulations on refusal and recovery of funds receive appropriate scrutiny, but I am confident that our commitment to transparent decision making ensures that the negative procedure is still suitable here. Given that, I urge the committee to reject the amendment.

Section 13 of the bill is the main power under which regulations about support will be made. I expect there to be a considerable number of regulations that are made under that power and regulations that are made and thereafter adjusted in light of experience and changing circumstances. Therefore, the procedure in the bill is what is sometimes described as an “either-way power”, which allows for the procedure for scrutiny to be chosen according to the significance, or otherwise, of what is to be done. That is designed to ensure that the valuable time of Parliament is utilised in an appropriate and proportionate way.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 77 would require any change by regulation, no matter how minor, to be subject to the affirmative procedure. The amendment does not provide for any proportionality in relation to the scale of a change that might be made, and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in particular agreed that that power should be an either-way power. For that reason, I ask the committee not to support that amendment.

Amendment 172 would make all regulations under section 13, which relate to administrative matters, eligibility and enforcement, subject to the affirmative procedure. I think that it would also remove proportionality and bring minor administrative changes into scope. Section 13(5) of the bill as drafted sets out what significant provisions would require the affirmative procedure. As I believe that approach to be proportionate and sensible, I encourage the committee not to support Tim Eagle’s amendment 172.

Amendment 184 would change the procedure to affirmative for any regulations made under section 18 for the processing of information. It is worth noting that, in its report, which was published in January, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee accepted the choice of negative procedure for section 18 regulations, agreeing with our choice of procedure and our reasons for that choice as stated in our delegated powers memorandum. The negative procedure is the appropriate procedure, as the power in this section will be exercised only for the purpose of ensuring that information used for administrative purposes and information that is shared when there is a public interest in doing so is processed lawfully. The appropriate privacy impact assessments will be carried out and there will, in particular, be consultation with the Information Commissioner’s Office. We consider the negative procedure to be appropriate in this case, as it will provide a suitable level of scrutiny in respect of regulations made under the power. For that reason, I ask the committee not to support amendment 184.

On amendment 87, the bill places a duty on Scottish ministers to prepare and publish a code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture. The code meets stakeholder expectation to provide a clearer understanding of the breadth of regenerative practice, and it will be a guidance document to assist in the delivery of sustainable and regenerative agriculture. It is separate from any conditionality that is linked to support, and it is not intended to be a form of regulation or enforcement. Instead, it will provide helpful guidance that can be readily updated to help farmers, crofters and land managers to adopt a range of sustainable and regenerative practices.

There is a duty on Scottish ministers, prior to publication, to lay any code or revised code before Parliament and to ensure that Parliament is able to see and comment on the code. Amendment 87, when read with amendment 84, which is in a later group, would make the code a regulation subject to the affirmative procedure, which would significantly change the nature of the guidance. It is inappropriate for material of such nature to be in a statutory instrument let alone to have such regulation subject to the affirmative procedure. I therefore ask the committee not to support amendment 87.

On amendment 90, earlier in the year, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the parliamentary procedure to be used in the bill, including in section 27(1), and its subsequent report indicated that it was content for section 27 to be subject to the negative procedure. The Scottish Government’s response highlighted, among other things, our intention to co-design a CPD regime with stakeholders. We have already commenced that process with an informal consultation on an agricultural knowledge and innovation system, which includes CPD, and we plan to consult formally on the CPD regime next year. That will ensure that the CPD regime works for industry and that it is appropriate, proportionate and adds value. Regulations brought under section 27(1) will accordingly be informed by a significant amount of stakeholder input and are often likely to involve technical and detailed matters. In the light of those points, and our agreement with the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s assessment of the procedure, I ask committee members not to support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 90.

I thank committee members for their comments on the amendments. I would agree with quite a lot of what has been said, overall.

It may be helpful, first, to set out the rationale for adopting the approach to the objectives that we did. Then I will turn to each of the amendments that have been lodged.

We published our vision for agriculture in 2022, and we developed it through extensive discussions with our core rural partners. That vision has extensive and broad support, and it sets out a route and an approach to rural Scotland that I think we all want to see.

In its purpose and objectives, the bill seeks to systemise the vision into clear strategic objectives. That was the result of considerable thought, to ensure that clear principles were applied in legislation in a way that would enable flexibility to deliver them.

I agree with the intentions behind some of the amendments in this group—for example, on some of the things that we have talked about today, such as soil health and new entrants. However, the objectives are designed not to list all possible priorities, but to be broad enough to cover a wide range of matters through the high-level wording, including issues that may emerge in the future.

There are some points that members have made that I am happy to welcome, but I ask members to bear in mind the process, which has involved key rural partners, and the strategic approach that has led us to our drafting. Although many of the amendments are well intentioned, some of them are not necessary.

I turn to Colin Smyth’s amendment 92, which seeks to create a purpose section at the beginning of the bill. Again, although the amendment is well intentioned, it is an unnecessary addition, because the bill as drafted already makes it clear that ministers must use their powers to meet the policy objectives, which will be further drawn out through the rural support plan. As we have set out a range of high-level objectives, I do not consider that we need a purpose section on top of that.

The main purpose of the bill is set out in the first paragraph. The bill does more than enable support for farmers, but the proposed purpose section is silent on support for rural communities. I do not think that that is the right approach, even if we needed a purpose section. Accordingly, I ask the committee not to support amendment 92.

I turn to Emma Harper’s amendment 93. I am proud to say that it is recognised globally that Scottish agriculture produces high-quality output. I understand that some might think that the amendment would add an unnecessary point of clarification in a Scottish bill, but setting that marker for the high-quality and regenerative future of our industry is positive, so I am happy to support amendment 93.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 96 seeks to remove the second overarching objective from section 1(b), which concerns the

“production of high-quality food”

and replace it with a reference to

“sustainable and high-quality agricultural and food production”.

The first objective, in section 1(a), is the

“adoption and use of sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices”.

Therefore, to a certain extent, the amendment would replicate the first objective and is unnecessary. It is also unnecessary to expand the second objective in the way that is proposed, because the reference to “high-quality food” is intended to encompass the good practices that Government expects in the production of food that might be supported under the terms of the bill, and that includes with regard to sustainability. I ask the committee not to support amendment 96.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 20 and Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 97 seek to amend the overarching objective on high-quality food in section 1(b), so that, for the purposes of agricultural production under the act, the objective would include “food security”, under amendment 20, or the

“protection and preservation of food security”,

under amendment 97. Food security is, of course, a hugely important issue, and the Scottish Government established a food security unit last spring. That was based on the recommendations of the short-life food security and supply task force that we established together with our food and drink industry.

Although I agree with the overall sentiment behind amendments 20 and 97, I do not believe that section 1 is the right place for them. Agriculture and food security are linked, but they are not synonymous. I am more minded to support amendment 47 from Emma Harper, which is proportionate and balanced because it recognises the clearer link with rural support plans. It demonstrates our commitment to food security on the one hand, but it recognises on the other that agricultural policy on its own cannot deliver food security. For those reasons, I ask the committee not to support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 20 or Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 97.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 94 seeks to amend the second overarching objective set out in section 1(b) to remove the reference to “high-quality”. That would mean that, for the purposes of agricultural production under the act, the objective would be the production of food. Although I understand and appreciate the explanation that Rachael Hamilton has offered, the Government is committed to maintaining Scotland’s reputation for producing and manufacturing high-quality food and drink. The second objective supports that continued aim, and we want to continue to have a focus on support for high-quality produce. Accordingly, I ask the committee not to support amendment 94.

I am happy to have a further discussion with Rachael Hamilton on that issue, but I cannot commit to what such an amendment might look like, because I would have to consider any potential implications.

I disagree with Rachael Hamilton’s point about the explanation being woolly, because we have high standards when it comes to cross-compliance and the statutory management requirements that we have in place. Broadly, if people comply with the high, rigorous standards that we have in place, that will meet the definition of high-quality food. I am more than happy to have a conversation with Rachael Hamilton, but I ask the committee not to support amendment 94.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 95 would change the second overarching objective, set out in section 1(b), so that, for the purposes of agricultural policy under the bill, the objective would be

“the production of high-quality food and other farm products using sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices”.

The amendment is unnecessary because other products in production are included in schedule 1 to the bill, and how we want them to be produced in return for support can be covered in regulations. Food production is the core purpose of agricultural policy and I am keen that we keep that focus. Therefore, I ask the committee not to support amendment 95.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 21 would add to the second overarching objective of agricultural policy, set out in section 1(b), which concerns the production of high-quality food. It would mean that, for the purposes of the bill, there would be an additional objective of

“access to locally produced food for every person in Scotland”.

We are absolutely committed to ensuring access to quality local food through our good food nation vision. The first draft national good food nation plan acknowledges that there is a great deal of interest in local food and in using public procurement as a tool to support the ambition for Scotland to be a good food nation. The work to achieve the aims of the amendment fits better with the purpose of the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 and our on-going work on the national plan.

Amendment 21 would also extend the purpose and objectives of the bill beyond agricultural policy. It is the Government’s objective to enable access to locally produced food for every person in Scotland, but it does not seem right to make that the objective of agricultural policy. Therefore, I ask the committee not to support amendment 21.