Chamber and committees

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Amendment 204, by agreement, withdrawn.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?

We discussed this matter last week. As I said, the stage 1 committee report on the bill notes that

“A definition of ‘high-quality food’ is not provided in either the Bill or the accompanying documents.”

If the Scottish Government is asking farmers and food producers to deliver “high-quality food”, it is important that the Government is clear about what it means by that.

Pete Ritchie of Nourish Scotland stated in evidence to the committee:

“it is bad law to put ‘high-quality food’ on the face of the bill if there is no intention to define it.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 13 December 2023; c 8.]

Others disagreed with that. However, as I stated in committee last week, we were previously told by Scottish Government officials that high-quality food relates to

“unadulterated produce that comes out of the ground and that is produced under the basic standards and expectations of Scottish agriculture”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 29 November 2023; c 4.]

To me, that is meaningless.

Last week, the cabinet secretary further suggested that,

“if people comply with the high, rigorous standards that we”

—the Scottish Government—

“have in place, that will meet the definition of high-quality food.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 8 May 2024; c 13.]

That statement does not chime with the previous statement by Scottish Government officials, so there is clearly disagreement, or no official line, on the matter.

Does the cabinet secretary intend to provide a clear definition of “high-quality” in the rural support plan? If so, would she be happy to discuss an amendment to that effect before stage 3?

I move amendment 204.

Will Ariane Burgess take an intervention?

Will the cabinet secretary share with the committee what information the UK Government has shared with her and the Scottish Government about the timeframe for announcing future funding—for example, in the next spending review?

Ms Burgess, I am minded to support a lot of your amendments, but I have noticed that you have chosen not to move a lot of them. Is that because you plan to come back at stage 3 with those amendments, or will you stay true to the intention that you have described and move the amendments so that we can understand whether we will be supporting them? I also wonder why you did not support my own amendment on soil health and the objectives.

I will press amendment 134. I am disappointed that the cabinet secretary does not agree with the concept of ring-fenced funding. In 2022, the Scottish Government received £33 million following a 2019 UK-wide review into the fair allocation of farming support. That cash was intended for agricultural support, but it should have been spent on rural affairs. That money for the rural affairs budget has, so far, not been returned, so my amendment should allow the Government to clarify how the money that has been allocated for the agriculture budget has been used. We are disappointed that that money—which was supposedly ring fenced—has not been returned to the budget. That further proves the point that ring-fenced money is very important to Scottish agriculture. I thank Rhoda Grant for supporting the amendment.

The Scottish Conservatives will support all the amendments in the group. Ariane Burgess’s amendment 137 is particularly important, because communities are often left behind in relation to afforestation. It is an excellent amendment.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 157, as he described, would provide further scrutiny, clarity and accountability. It would also help everyone to be part of, and to become involved in, the concept of the bill.

My amendment 160 requires a consultation, within six months of royal assent, on the proposed use of the section 9 powers to cap. A suggestion to that effect was highlighted in the committee’s stage 1 report, which asked the Government

“to ensure that any consultation on capping, tapering or frontloading payments is completed at an early opportunity with consideration for businesses that would be affected by any change.”

My amendment would give stakeholders the opportunity to make representations on key issues to the Scottish Government. Requiring that to be done within six months of royal assent would provide certainty about future payment schemes for those who are affected by any changes.

Regarding some of the other amendments in the group, we will support amendment 159 and particularly amendment 161, which provides for effective consultation, as well as amendments 162 and 163. I also very much support amendment 164, which makes the capping powers subject to the affirmative procedure.

Right—so we are leaving it in your hands to define that. That is not really what this committee is about. It is about ensuring that we can, by regulation, define what is considered to be the test of “in the public interest”. I am surprised that the Scottish Government is scared of amendment 166.