Chamber and committees

That is what I meant when I said that I absolutely understand and appreciate where you are coming from with amendment 26. I am more than happy to have a further conversation about the issue, but, because all the powers that would be required to meet that objective do not necessarily rest with the Scottish Government, I am not in a position to support amendment 26.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 27 seeks to add an objective to provide further support to people involved in small-scale production and crofters. I agree that the bill will be improved by adding a new objective of agricultural policy providing support for diversity. I note that amendment 48, in the name of Ariane Burgess, has a similar purpose and is more comprehensive in that regard. Therefore, I ask the committee to support amendment 48 and not amendment 27.

We will discuss that in relation to the amendments in the next grouping. I do not want to pre-empt that discussion, because I know that there are a lot of amendments on the issue and I want to make sure that we look at it holistically. I want us to be able to have that full discussion so that we end up in a place where the rural support plan is able to deliver what we all hope and expect it to.

I understand that amendments 189 and 190 require the Scottish ministers to lay a report on food security before the Parliament. Amendment 189 requires a report with statistical data across five food security themes every three years, and amendment 190 requires a report with information on supply chain disruptions and Government actions to address them every year.

As we have heard from members, food security is a hugely important issue. I absolutely recognise that, not least because of the threats that we now face, including the impacts of Brexit and the on-going impact of the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia. In response, this Government, as I have outlined, undertook to act on a range of recommendations that came forward as a result of the work that we have done with the food security and supply task force, which we co-chaired. That led to establishing a food security unit in the Scottish Government.

I appreciate why Beatrice Wishart has sought to replicate the provisions in the United Kingdom Agriculture Act 2020 on reporting on food security. Of course, I would be happy to replicate that in full if Scotland was independent, had control over all the levers and had access to the sort of information that the UK act requires and that contributes to food security. I offer Beatrice Wishart assurance that we co-operate closely with the UK Government and other devolved Governments in providing data on those matters for the purposes of the UK food security report, where that information is held. Officials and I continue to seek to ensure that Scotland has access to Scotland-level data, where that is available. However, where it is not, amendment 189 as drafted would require us to meet reporting measures that we simply cannot meet, which would not be appropriate.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 190 is slightly less onerous in what it would require us to report on, but it creates more of an unhelpful timeline. Moreover, it asks Scottish ministers to explain how they will resolve potential disruptions to the food supply chain that it might not be within our gift, powers or resources—nor, indeed, within devolved competence—to resolve.

However, on amendments 189 and 190, we might be able to put something in the bill in relation to that issue that is proportionate and effective and that provides useful information that is not currently delivered elsewhere—for example, by Food Standards Scotland in relation to its statutory role and responsibilities. I therefore ask Beatrice Wishart and Rachael Hamilton not to move their respective amendments, so that we can have that further discussion before stage 3. If they do move them, I urge members not to support them.

I understand the desire for scrutiny of the use of public funds, but amendment 64 would create an arbitrary reporting requirement when it is important that we do not place restrictions on the timescale, method and publication of reporting. We all understand that farming and crofting is a long-term endeavour and that it takes time for outcomes to be realised, which is at odds with asking for annual reporting. Again, the proper place for that effective monitoring and evaluation is in the context of the rural support plan. Looking holistically at the impact of support in relation to the objectives of the bill and our statutory duties, I ask Rhoda Grant not to move amendment 64. If she does, I ask members not to support it.

Although I absolutely acknowledge that amendment 150 was lodged in good faith, I cannot accept that it is right to table arbitrary periods, nor to set exacting specifications, before the monitoring and evaluation framework has been co-developed if we are to ensure that the right information can be gained from those applying for the support that is on offer. I also think that the reporting required by the amendment would be very onerous, as well as very expensive to deliver, and would not be a good use of our limited resources. I will shortly speak about a substantial offer to return at stage 3 with more duties that the rural support plan must encompass, which I believe will address our positive intent more effectively. I therefore ask Colin Smyth not to move amendment 150. If he does move it, I ask members not to support it.

As I outlined in my initial comments on what we would look at in relation to the rural support plan, we want to consider how we can best help, because I absolutely appreciate that everybody wants the certainty of multi-annual funding. However, I am also trying to outline that, given the position and uncertainty that we are in, we have no idea whether we will get a budget, or what that might look like, beyond next year. We cannot commit to that in the bill, but we want to see what we can work with and what is available to us to look at in that space.

I hope that the committee will indulge me slightly, because there is clearly a lot for me to cover, and I want to pick up on each of the areas that have been identified by members who have lodged amendments in the group. From looking at all the amendments to sections 2 and 3, it is clear that there is, quite rightly, a lot of interest in the scrutiny, content and role of the rural support plan.

There have been lots of helpful suggestions about how the bill’s current provisions might be strengthened. It is crucial that we do not consider each element in isolation; we should consider them as a coherent whole to ensure that the plan is drafted and delivered and that it functions as we all want it to do.

The first rural support plan will need to take into account our transition from legacy EU CAP schemes to the new four-tier framework. The route map, which I have talked about at length in previous committee meetings, sets out the transition period, and we are actively co-developing the details of the tiers in the framework with rural partners and stakeholders. The transition period will, of course, have implications for the first plan that we produce, as we are constrained in practice by what currently exists while we develop the details of the new system.

I cannot make a commitment on a budget that I do not have. It would be irresponsible for me to do that.

I absolutely appreciate your point. I hope that you do not find too many examples of that where we have consulted in my own portfolio, because accessibility is fundamental and I think that we have some really good examples of consultations that we have undertaken. We have touched on the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 and some of the engagement that was undertaken on that. We have worked with Nourish Scotland, which has done fantastic work in helping us to engage more widely, as well as with other organisations. That is important, because we want to ensure that people understand the information on which we are consulting and that the consultation is undertaken in an accessible way. We have obligations in relation to that, and all of that will be key to what we are considering when we look at the overall consultation requirements that I have set out. I hope that Ariane Burgess is reassured on that point.

With regard to amendment 120, I would probably have more sympathy with Rachael Hamilton’s point if it had not been for the fact that her party had created some of the trade barriers to the export and import of food from the EU, which may now mean that imports are coming from further afield than they previously did. In addition, in spite of the member’s explanation, I am not entirely clear as to what the intent behind gathering such information is, given the rurality and sparsity of the population in Scotland, particularly in our island communities, where, by definition, the number of food miles is going to be greater than what is needed to reach other areas. It is quite clear that we should be doing all that we can to produce more food and meet more of our own food needs, and to do that more sustainably in Scotland. That is a core aim of this Government.

I completely disagree with your assertion. As I have said, I fully intend to discuss matters with individual members, just as I undertook meetings with members to discuss potential amendments at stage 2. I intend to have those discussions—and to have them in good time.

It is important that we look at this holistically. As I have set out, there are different requirements in some of these amendments, and it is important that we take these things away, look at them and ensure that we have a workable plan that takes all of that into consideration.

I propose to speak to the amendments in my name before turning to the other amendments in the group. I have listened to the calls from the committee and stakeholders at stage 1 to provide further clarity on what ministers must have regard to in relation to land use in the preparation or amendment of the rural support plan. That is why I have lodged amendment 4.

I want to ensure that it is made clear to all that Scottish ministers have a clear and explicit duty to account for the broadest of considerations and impacts when devising a plan for the future support of agriculture. It might go without saying that such a duty exists, but it is right to put it plainly that Scottish ministers must have regard to statutory duties that relate to agriculture, biodiversity, land use and the environment.

Amendment 42, in the name of Elena Whitham, refers to biodiversity, too. It is a helpful addition that makes clear the breadth of considerations, so I very much welcome its inclusion. It is right that those duties are put at the heart of our rural support plan. I therefore ask the committee to accept amendment 4 in my name and to support Elena Whitham’s amendment 42.

Amendment 5 seeks to place fair work and conditionality, which is a Scottish Government policy across all public support, as a central objective for Scottish Government agricultural support. It puts fair work policy into legislation for all future support, which contributes to making fair work practices the norm in Scottish workplaces and, in doing so, supports the vision for Scotland to become a fair work nation.

I know that amendments in other groups and on other sections of the bill seek to add fair work considerations, but this feels like the best place to put it—at the heart of the rural support plan, from which the details of the framework, future tiers and schemes will flow.

We want what we include in the bill not to restrict our ability to cap, taper or redistribute. We will undoubtedly come on to that when we discuss amendments in later groupings. It is fundamental to our approach to policy development that we work with our farmers and crofters to see which mechanism works best. I appreciate the evidence that the committee has heard in that regard, but it is important that we go through that process and that we have the flexibility provided in the bill for whatever mechanism we might choose to develop.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 102 seeks to widen the objectives to include soil health, in order to highlight the importance of the overall biological condition of soil. I absolutely recognise and agree that the protection and effective management of soil health is crucial to sustainable and regenerative farming and is aligned with our wider biodiversity and climate adaptation work, and with our efforts to cut emissions from the agriculture sector. However, the bill enables us to provide support for that purpose, as soil health is specified in schedule 1. Therefore, I do not think that amendment 102 is necessary and I ask the committee not to support it.

If Colin Smyth’s amendment 103 were agreed to, it would add further text to section 1 to emphasise the importance of sustainable agricultural businesses to rural communities and would link that to the objective set out in paragraph (a) of section 1, on the adoption and use of sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices. However, the objectives of agricultural policy in section 1 already take into consideration the importance of sustainable agricultural businesses, not least through the inclusion of the objective in paragraph (b), on the production of high-quality food. For those reasons, I ask the committee not to support amendment 103.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 106 seeks to update the objective set out in paragraph (d) of section 1, on enabling rural communities to thrive, to emphasise two of the factors that will enable communities to thrive, including shorter supply chains and incomes received by farmers and crofters. The purpose of the objectives in the bill is to cover the range of factors that foster thriving rural communities. Although I recognise the key importance of shorter supply chains and of

“the adequacy and fairness of incomes received by farmers and crofters”—

to be clear, I absolutely support those aims—I do not agree that there is a need to emphasise them in section 1, given the wide range of factors involved in enabling rural communities to thrive. I therefore ask the committee not to support amendment 106.

As with amendment 92, on the creation of a purpose clause, I believe that, although well intentioned, amendment 107 is unnecessary. The bill already makes it clear that the powers that are sought are to be exercised to meet the objectives set out in part 1. The rural support plan, on which I will offer more context, will make clear how we will deliver on those objectives and how we will evidence progress towards them and the broader statutory duties. I hope that that offer will not only deliver on the positive intent behind Colin Smyth’s amendment but will go further by making it clear that ministers will report on and evidence all of this. Accordingly, I ask the committee not to support amendment 107.

On amendment 108, I sought to ensure that the bill’s objectives were drafted sufficiently broadly and at a high enough level to capture the vision for agriculture and ensure flexibility with regard to how that will be realised. However, I also recognise that, over time, what the Government and the Parliament wish for the objectives of agricultural policy might change, and Colin Smyth’s amendment 108 seeks to provide a regulatory power to make those changes. It offers that further flexibility, with a clear place for effective scrutiny, should it be clear that changing or refining objectives in the future is needed or desirable. Therefore, I welcome Colin Smyth’s amendment 108 and ask the committee to support it.

I disagree with Rachael Hamilton’s interpretation. I come back to the rationale that I have set out for our not supporting amendment 101. I do not think that it is helpful to separate out farmers in that context, because they are such an intrinsic part of our rural communities. I referred to farmers earlier, and we have specific measures relating to our farmers and crofters. I therefore think that we are talking slightly at cross-purposes in that respect.

On amendment 26, fair work principles are core to the Scottish Government’s approach to the economy and the labour market, as I have sought to make clear with my amendment 5. The positive intent behind amendment 26 is not in question, but there are a myriad reasons why a rural business might not have sufficient funds and resources, many of which are beyond the influence of Government. Although I understand what Rhoda Grant is seeking to do, I cannot support amendment 26, not least because it asks the Scottish Government to do something that is outwith its powers, however much we might wish that the situation were otherwise. Therefore, I ask the committee not to support amendment 26.