Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 171 seeks to change the wording regarding who is to be consulted, from those who the Scottish ministers “consider appropriate” to those who are

“likely to be affected by provisions in this section”.

That wording is more in line with that contained in existing legislation.

I acknowledge that my amendment is similar to Rhoda Grant’s amendment 76. However, I believe that the more specific wording in my amendment will ensure that people affected by the provisions will have the opportunity to voice their views through consultation. I intend to move amendment 171, and I will be interested to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say.

Section 9, as drafted, gives the Scottish ministers the power either to cap or taper payments. Rightly, it does not compel the Scottish ministers to use those powers, nor does it stipulate how they are to be used, leaving that for secondary legislation. My amendment 159 seeks to state in the bill that the Scottish ministers also have the power to use a front-loading approach, which is similar to, but distinct from, tapering. Stating that within the bill will indicate that the Scottish ministers have the power to use that tool to address the disadvantages faced by crofters and smaller farmers.

My amendment 165 defines “payments under tier 1” in section 9.

Amendment 163, in my name, would define the persons consulted on the powers in section 9 as those who are

“likely to be affected by provisions in this section”.

I believe that that more specific wording will ensure that those who are affected by the provisions have the opportunity to voice their views through consultation.

Amendment 164, in my name, would require regulations made under section 9 to be subject to the affirmative procedure. In my view, that would be the appropriate level of scrutiny for the powers that the Scottish ministers have in that section.

I ask members to support my amendments 159, 163, 164 and 165.

Amendment 194, in my name, seeks to require Scottish ministers to consult farmers, crofters and land managers before making regulations under section 27, and to

“have regard to any responses to the consultation.”

CPD must be co-designed with crofters and farmers, and it must be appropriate for the size and location of crofts and farms to ensure that it is effective in achieving its aims. Amendment 194 would ensure that there is a statutory requirement for farmers, crofters and land managers to have their views considered by Scottish ministers before they make regulations about CPD.

Amendment 96 amends the second objective in the bill by broadening it from referring only to food production to referring to agricultural and food production. Adding the word “agricultural” delivers a more accurate definition of farming and crofting activity, as it captures all aspects of agricultural production that are not directly related to food per se but are still of importance, such as animal feed and renewable energy.

I support amendment 27, in the name of Rhoda Grant, as Scotland’s agriculture sector is diverse and that diversity should be supported and encouraged.

I also support amendment 22, in the name of Elena Whitham, because it adds an objective on the promotion and support of agricultural practices that protect and improve animal health and welfare.

Finally, I will comment on amendment 101, in the name of Rachael Hamilton. Although I am not averse to adding farmers explicitly to that objective, the change of wording from “enabling” to “allowing” is a weakening of the overall objective. I ask members to support amendment 96.

Amendment 189, in my name, would create a new section in the bill that would place a duty on Scottish ministers

“to report to Parliament on Scotland’s food security”.

It replicates the food security reporting requirements for the United Kingdom in the Agriculture Act 2020. As food security is a key issue, I believe that such a reporting requirement would be helpful in generating statistical data on food security in Scotland that could be used to inform policy.

Amendment 190, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would also place a duty on Scottish ministers

“to report to Parliament on Scotland’s food security”.

Although I share Rachael Hamilton’s aims on that point, I would ask members to support my amendment 189, as I consider that the reporting period of three years is more achievable than the annual reporting period that is set out in amendment 190.

Amendment 118, in my name, requires Scottish ministers to publish and consult for a period of no less than 84 days on a draft of the rural support plan and to have regard to any responses to the consultation.

Amendment 125 creates the same requirement for any amended plan. In order for the rural support plan to deliver the desired outcomes, there needs to be effective discussion and consultation in advance of the publication and subsequent reviews of the plan.

Amendment 119, in the name of Alasdair Allan, would also require the rural support plan to be consulted on, as would amendment 127, in the name of Rachael Hamilton. I am supportive of both of those amendments for the reasons that I outlined, about the need for consultation.

Amendment 122, in my name, would require the first rural support plan to be published no later than six months, beginning with the day after royal assent.

Amendment 35, in the name of Colin Smyth, would create a similar requirement for the first rural support plan to be published no more than six months after the section comes into force. I share Colin Smyth’s aim that the first rural support plan be published soon after the bill becomes an act. The agriculture sector has been crying out for certainty and information about support schemes for years, and it is important that the first rural support plan is published as soon as possible. That is also important because Parliament should be sighted on the rural support plan before approving secondary legislation on specific schemes, which are expected to come forward for consideration and approval during 2025.

Amendment 123, in the name of Tim Eagle, is a direct alternative to my amendment 122, although it specifies three months. I believe that six months is a better timescale and I encourage members to support my amendment 122.

I will support Colin Smyth’s amendment 31 because an indicative multi-annual financial framework must be included in the rural support plan. It would provide the certainty that the sector needs to plan, invest in businesses and deliver on the objectives of the bill, particularly as agriculture operates over longer timescales. I ask members to join me in supporting amendment 31. I also ask members to support my amendments 118, 122 and 125.

Amendment 156, which is in my name, would require regulations on section 7 guidance to be subject to the affirmative procedure. The importance of that guidance merits that higher level of scrutiny. I ask members to support my amendment.

Given what the cabinet secretary has said, I will not move the amendment.

Following on from Alasdair Allan’s question, I have heard similar concerns from scallop fishers in Shetland about the lack of availability in respect of getting somebody to come and fix problems, whatever they might be, and about the availability of spare parts.

Some stakeholders have also raised concerns about the 28-day grace period for repairs. Some think that that is too long and could allow for non-compliance. What measures would you take to ensure compliance in such situations? What exemptions are being considered for vessels that are not able to have something fixed within the 28-day period?

Are you saying that there are no exemptions beyond that 28-day period?