Seòmar agus comataidhean

I just want to draw to the committee’s attention an issue relating to Scottish statutory instrument 2024/218. Although I have no problems with the SSI, a 62.5 per cent increase in cost, from £5 million to £8 million, is predicted, and I wonder whether it is worth flagging that to the lead committee. Although the cost is spread over a broad base, it is important that we look at that, ultimately, for those who have to pay it.

I am happy to take those items in private, but I just want to declare an interest in relation to item 6, which is on the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, in that I am a farmer and have received basic payment support.

Amendment 188 is my final amendment, so here’s hoping. It relates to the code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture and follows on from my points about the rural support plan. That document is very important to the bill and all the finance that will come behind it. Amendment 188 would require that the code that is dealt with in sections 26(4) and 26(5) could be adopted only by resolution of the Scottish Parliament.

I am happy to work with the cabinet secretary, so I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 149 not moved.

Amendment 63 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 5—Funding third party support

Amendment 64 moved—[Rhoda Grant].

Okay—it is just that I have amendment 157 in front of me.

Amendment 139 moved—[Tim Eagle].

I agree with the minister’s point and therefore will not move the amendment.

Amendment 143 not moved.

Amendments 201, 51 and 52 moved—[Ariane Burgess]—and agreed to.

Amendment 6 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 53 not moved.

Amendment 7 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.

Amendment 144 moved—[Beatrice Wishart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 145 moved—[Rhoda Grant].

Good morning. Amendment 157 would place a reporting requirement on ministers to assess the performance of functions delegated by ministers within a year of the bill coming into force. The intention behind amendment 157 is to ensure that organisations to which functions of the bill have been delegated are held accountable for their performance. It would provide a means of tracking their progress on key functions of the bill and would offer ministers the opportunity to assess whether delegation was the correct approach.

We know how important accountability is for the effective operation of legislation. Amendment 157 would improve the level of accountability in relation to not only ministers but all stakeholders who were involved in implementing the bill’s provisions.

Okay—is that mine? [Interruption.]

Is it not amendment 157, convener?

All the amendments in the group are in my name, so I will try to rattle through them.

The group is about clarification. I do not quite understand where we are between guidance and statutory or legal duties.

Amendment 151 would clarify the guidance referred to in section 7, which is confusing on how the code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture could be used. The mention of the code in that context should be removed.

Amendments 152 and 153 seek to change the bill to ensure that guidance on a particular scheme or purpose is laid before the Scottish Parliament and published. The bill allows for one or the other. If the committee agrees to amendment 152, it will need to consider amendment 153, as the phrase “(or both)” at the end of section 7(2)(a) will no longer be required.

Amendments 154 and 155 would ensure that guidance that is produced under section 7 remains as guidance or advice rather than stringent regulation that must be complied with. The section states that provision will be made that specifies

“the extent to which compliance with guidance on a particular topic”

relates to

“a statutory duty or condition of support”,

as well as

“the admissibility or evidential value of the guidance in legal proceedings.”

Therefore, the removal of sections 7(2)(c) and 7(2)(d) would assure farmers and crofters that guidance will remain just that, rather than a statutory or regulatory prism.