Chamber and committees

Will Ariane Burgess take an intervention?

I completely understand what you have said about protecting good food-growing land while ensuring that we can meet our environmental targets. I am minded to support the amendment, although Ariane Burgess is not. I wonder whether the right thing to do in the future would be to consider some of the schemes so that land is protected, noting that a limited number of schemes can support the biofuels industry. I am looking closely at what the UK Government is doing.

I had never heard of rural anchor institutions, as you well know—we have discussed that. I was a bit sceptical about the amendment being something that others could understand, but I think that, from your description, it is really important. Rhoda Grant has been highlighting machinery rings, which can offer a number of ancillary services, some of which—co-operatives and others—help people with things like mental health and set up supportive networks. Amendment 56 is really important and I will support it.

I would like to understand where the cabinet secretary is coming from, because Tim Eagle’s amendment 154 speaks very much about what the Government has just advocated in relation to the guidance, rather than guidance that has an aspect of being a regulatory or statutory prism. I believe that the cabinet secretary is arguing against supporting amendments 154 and 155 by not agreeing that it is unnecessary to have a statutory obligation, which is what amendment 154 sets out to remove.

During the evidence sessions, many stakeholders and farmers—those people at the grass roots—described the guidance as having to be, from the Government’s point of view, carrot rather than stick. I am surprised that we are now in this conversation whereby the Government is looking at assessing what level of cross-compliance there should be when the whole of section 7 is about guidance. I think that it will be quite worrying for farmers that you have said that, cabinet secretary. I am concerned that farmers will be worried that they are not being given the carrot and are being given more of the stick.

This is another group with a sole amendment in it. Amendment 200 would place a 60-60 target in the bill. That target would require local authorities to source 60 per cent of the food that they procure from within 60 miles of the authority region within three years of royal assent. Although a 60-60 target might appear ambitious, it would reduce emissions by cutting unnecessary food miles and would support local jobs. I brought the proposal forward in amendments to the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill but it was not supported. However, I still believe that, where it is achievable, it can be an ambition.

It is not possible for the target to work in all regions, particularly remote and island communities, so I suggest tailoring the support to ensure that, if it is not possible to hit the 60-60 target, the priority would be to procure as much food as possible from within Scotland and the United Kingdom, rather than importing food, as is done so much now.

I move amendment 200.

You do not see the need for a consultation provision to be included in the bill.

I will not move the amendment. I will work with the cabinet secretary in great faith.

Amendment 193 not moved.

Amendment 194 not moved.

Amendment 195 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

Amendment 193 seeks to require ministers to consider certain principles when developing CPD requirements. The principles that are drawn on in my amendment are outlined in the recommendations in the stage 1 committee report. Those principles are the need for CPD to be

“co-designed with the sector to which it will apply ... delivered in the most appropriate format, which could include peer-to-peer knowledge exchange ... accessible to all farmers, crofters and land managers ... include an accreditation scheme for trainers and advisers”

and, finally, for it to be

“monitored and evaluated.”

By outlining those principles, my amendment 193 provides an opportunity to create effective CPD schemes that are tailored to the sector. The amendment is supported by the NFUS and SLE. Amendment 195 is consequential on amendment 193.

Amendment 197 specifies that CPD must be “affordable and accessible” for those receiving the training. That sensible amendment seeks to ensure that CPD schemes are accessible and inclusive for farmers and food producers.

Amendment 198 would insert a new subsection in section 27, stating that CPD activities could be required only if they related to relevant health and safety issues. The stage 1 committee report noted:

“Aside from recognising some training should be compulsory for health and safety reasons, there was no support amongst stakeholders for compulsory CPD.”

The compulsory element has been the subject of much discussion. By stipulating that CPD activities must relate only to health and safety, my amendment 198 seeks to ensure that CPD schemes remain simple and focused, rather than excessive and burdensome.

Amendment 199 would require a report to be published by Scottish ministers annually to assess how CPD is being “carried out and managed”. As has been noted in relation to other amendments in the group, CPD schemes should be simple and focused. Amendment 199 provides the Parliament with the opportunity to scrutinise the effectiveness of the schemes that are implemented by Scottish ministers and ensures that any CPD schemes work in the interests of Scottish farmers, farm workers and producers, rather than being burdensome, as I have described.

Will the member take an intervention now?