Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I touched on, there are other amendments in relation to fair work. We always have to be careful when it comes to fair work considerations, because they cut across different competences. We need to ensure that what we are introducing is within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament.

I do not know whether you are referencing the real living wage. The fair work agenda is quite broad and covers a host of other matters. We have tried to show how we are having regard to the fair work principles that we have set out, and amendment 5 is the best way for us to accomplish that.

I fundamentally disagree with what Rachael Hamilton has just said with regard to our support for rural communities. We are absolutely committed to that.

The amendment seeks to create a statutory requirement to establish and run a rural community wealth fund that would fund rural projects, and it leaves it to ministers to decide what the fund would be for and who would receive support. However, part 4 of schedule 1 to the bill already provides for powers to support rural communities and the rural economy, while section 4 already enables ministers to add, remove or modify any of the purposes for support set out in schedule 1. As a result, the amendment adds nothing new to those powers and provisions, and it is not needed.

I am proud that the Scottish Government already provides important support for rural communities through a range of programmes, such as community-led local development, the Scottish Rural Network and Scottish Rural Action, which do vital and important work in our communities across Scotland. It is fully my intention that support for rural communities will continue into the future through the powers that the bill provides, and in order to determine what that support might look like and to learn from current schemes, we will undertake a review and set out details of future proposals after the bill is enacted. I therefore urge the committee not to support amendment 133.

We are taking forward work on the good food nation plan, and I know that the committee will have a role in scrutinising that. The consultation on the plan closed last month. We were keen to engage widely, and we hope that what we have set out in the plan will achieve our overall objectives and our vision for a good food nation. I am happy to continue to engage with Rhoda Grant and other members around the table with an interest in the matter. I want to ensure that the good food nation plan is as strong as possible, and I recognise that it will, of course, evolve over time.

Elena Whitham’s amendment 22 seeks to provide for animal health and welfare to be included in the objectives, and Colin Smyth’s amendment 3 seeks to provide for animal welfare to be included. That emphasises a strand that runs from Scotland’s long-established history of having good-quality livestock to our recent agricultural vision, and that strand will continue into the code for sustainable and regenerative agriculture. At stage 1, we heard a lot from stakeholders about how important that is and that we should state that as an objective of agricultural policy in Scotland. I think that Elena Whitham’s amendment 22 is preferable to Colin Smyth’s amendment 3, so I ask the committee to reject amendment 3 and accept amendment 22.

I agree whole-heartedly with the intention behind Ariane Burgess’s amendment 23. I want to include in the new tier framework schemes that will help us to deliver that intention in a way that is consistent with the high-level objectives in section 1. However, the amendment relates to a specific aim rather than a high-level objective, so it would be inappropriate to include in the bill what is proposed in the amendment. Moreover, enabling what I have set out could, arguably, be a key way of delivering objective 4, which is

“enabling rural communities to thrive.”

I hope that that reassures Ariane Burgess and that she will not move amendment 23. However, if she does, I ask the committee not to support it.

Ariane Burgess has also lodged amendments 24 and 25. Section 1 of the bill sets out the key objectives for agricultural policy, and the third objective refers specifically to “on-farm” support. I am not sure where agricultural policy and those objectives would be delivered other than on farms. The objectives seek to intrinsically link agricultural policy and food production, with there also being the need for

“on-farm nature restoration, climate mitigation and adaptation”.

The bill does enable a much wider range of support, but section 1 is focused on agriculture and is not the place for any wider objectives. It should be remembered that the bill is primarily to support agricultural producers who then might wish to take up climate and nature measures. Widening the bill’s scope by removing the term “on-farm” risks dilution of support for farmers and does not recognise that other support is available outwith agricultural support. For example, we have the nature restoration fund. I therefore ask the committee to reject amendment 24.

On amendment 25, the bill already includes powers that enable farmers, crofters and land managers to collaborate between farms and at landscape scale if they wish to do. That includes funding for third-party support to deliver grants and support to enable such collaborations to occur. I therefore ask the committee not to support amendment 25.

Colin Smyth’s amendments 98, 99, 100, 104 and 105 remove the current objective for nature restoration and climate and replace it with a range of new separate objectives, as well as additional detail. Much consideration has gone into ensuring that the wording in the bill and in the objectives reflects terms with common meaning that can be articulated to the vision. The four objectives are not listed in order of priority, but it is important to note that, by their very nature, they are high-level and wide-ranging and are aimed at supporting the others. On-farm nature restoration, climate mitigation and adaptation are clearly covered by the current objectives, so I struggle to see what value there would be in separating them into individual objectives, as has been proposed by Colin Smyth’s amendments 98, 99 and 100.

His amendments 100 and 105 propose inserting the term “natural heritage”. I want to be clear that enhancing our nation’s natural heritage is something that we all subscribe to, but that term has contested understandings and using it might narrow the scope of intent of the existing objective. On-farm nature restoration is already suitably and clearly covered by the objectives in the bill as it is drafted, so I struggle to see what replacing it with a specific nature objective would achieve.

Amendment 104 seeks to reintroduce an objective on climate mitigation and adaptation. Those are already suitably and clearly covered by the objectives in the bill and we are already bound by the requirements of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, so I struggle to see what value that amendment offers. For those reasons, I ask the committee not to support that group of amendments.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 101 looks to alter the text of the objective in section 1(d):

“enabling rural communities to thrive.”

The amendment proposes adding reference to farmers as part of that objective. The amendment reflects the vital importance of farmers to our rural communities and I fully recognise the key role that farmers play in supporting the socioeconomic vitality of rural areas. However, farmers are an integral part of our rural communities and I do not think that they should be viewed as separate to that and to the communities where they live and work. That is why I think that Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 101 is unnecessary and I ask the committee not to support it.

During stage 1, I signalled the importance of monitoring and evaluating the contribution that support might make towards the delivery of our objectives and the meeting of our statutory duties. However, I suggest that the rural support plan would be the appropriate place for us to do that, as the full framework of support that would be enabled by the bill can be considered together rather than through a separate set of regulations, which amendment 109 calls for.

We should also be wary of requiring targets to be established when the legal effects of them are unclear and the duty to achieve them is unqualified. As we will all be aware, targets are very easy to set and are much more challenging to deliver in practice, especially when it is largely down to the efforts of a wide range of third parties to meet them. In the next group of amendments, which is on the contents and scrutiny of the rural support plan, I will set out my intention to come back to the Parliament at stage 3 with a more suitable framing of the planned requirements to cover a wide range of the issues that were raised at stage 1, as well as issues that have been raised by stakeholders, including on the monitoring and evaluation process. In my view, that approach would more effectively deliver on the intent that I believe is behind amendment 109. Therefore, I ask Colin Smyth not to press his amendment. If he does, I ask the committee not to support it.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 110 amends section 20 of the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 to require the Scottish food commission to

“keep under review progress in achieving the objective in section(1)(b)”

of the bill. Section (1)(b), on the overarching objectives of agricultural policy, says:

“For or the purposes of this Act, the objectives of agricultural policy are the production of high quality food”.

The 2022 act contains provisions to establish a new Scottish food commission to provide the oversight for the delivery of the provisions in the act. The Scottish food commission will be an executive non-departmental public body and its purpose will be to provide oversight of the good food nation plans, as required by the 2022 act. Expanding that purpose to include oversight for legislation, including the bill that we are considering, is not useful and it may prevent the commission from effectively exercising its existing functions. It is vital that the commission is allowed to focus on ensuring the delivery and implementation of the good food nation plans by Scottish ministers, local authorities and health boards. For that reason, I urge members not to support amendment 110.

On amendment 111, when public expenditure is involved and is being provided to help to deliver a wide range of objectives, it is right that regular progress is reported on. However, the expectation that review periods are set to arbitrary timescales that might not be reflective of the timetable for the support that is in place is not right. There is a distinct risk that Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 111 would require there to be reporting on such a frequent basis that it would become hugely costly and burdensome and that that would get in the way of delivery, which I do not think would be in anyone’s interests. We need to provide for appropriate monitoring and evaluation. As I have outlined, I believe that the rural support plan is the right place for that activity to be undertaken. I will set out what that might look like in the debate on the next group of amendments. Accordingly, I hope that Rachael Hamilton will not move amendment 111, and I urge the committee not to support it if she does.

I hope that you will allow me to finish my comments, because it is important that I set out what I am looking to achieve and what we hope to gain from that. I am happy to follow up with you separately. That is not normally how the process for engaging on amendments that we would lodge as a result of the discussions that we have had at stage 2 is handled. I hope that you will allow me to set out fully and clearly what we are planning to do, because that sets us on the path of a constructive way forward.

What is key and what we cannot forget is the regulations and what the bill provides us with the powers to do. When it comes to developing future schemes, that co-development process is hugely important and it is the foundation of our approach, as I have outlined. The committee will, of course, have a scrutiny role over all of that as we bring forward that further detail. As I have already outlined, the rural support plan is really there to set out our strategic priorities and it builds on what we have already set out through our vision for agriculture and the route map.

I know that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee asked us to provide a draft or an outline of the rural support plan prior to stage 3, so I am happy to commit to doing that. I can provide an outline of what it might look like. However, as I have outlined in relation to the first version of the plan, it will be a living document and it will be iterative, given the phase and the period of transition that we are in.

I will return to my comments, if I can. I hope that members will allow me to finish them, because what I will set out goes a long way towards addressing the concerns that have been expressed.

We intend for the rural support plan to include the role that the four support tiers, as per the policy memorandum, will play in contributing to the delivery of the bill objectives in section 1. The tiers do not exist in isolation and it is intended that they will operate as part of a coherent programme approach to future support, as outlined in our route map.

In our climate change action policy package, which was announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Net Zero and Energy, Màiri McAllan, we stated that tier 2 will be important for delivering outcomes of climate and nature. We will ensure that we better articulate the role of each tier of the overall framework in driving actions to meet the bill’s objectives. It will also include greater detail on the support that will be provided, including scheme descriptions, expected outcomes, anticipated uptake and indicative budgets. That is not an exhaustive list. Some of the detail that is asked for is already in place for current EU CAP schemes and is published, but I understand that bringing all of that together in one place will provide greater transparency and understanding of the breadth of our programme of support. I will explore what more we can provide on that.

There have been a lot of asks about budgets and providing more clarity in the longer term, but unfortunately there is no getting around the fact that we are still in a position of having no UK Government budget guarantees from 2025. That has clear implications for our ability to plan agricultural support. I have already set out that funding for tiers 1 and 2 will constitute at least 70 per cent of the overall funding envelope and that a further announcement about the proportion of funding between tiers 1 and 2 will be made in June this year. I commit to seeing what additional clarity could be provided, even if any figures would only be indicative.

The contribution of our overall agricultural reform programme in meeting statutory duties relating to agriculture, the environment, biodiversity and land will be considered, too. We have already set out our climate change action policy package and the changes that we are making, so I will not reiterate those, but it is important that we clearly outline and articulate what our programme is doing to help agriculture meet emissions reduction targets.

Further details of the agricultural reform programme co-development process include what we engage on, where we engage, who we engage with, how we engage and the expected outputs that will feed into our route map. That will provide important clarity on the engagement and consultation that already exist and where the rural support plan sits in that process.

The indicative programme of secondary legislation that will follow the bill and deliver on the route map will be considered, too. I have already outlined changes from 2025, which have been scheduled into the legislative timetable for later this year. I will investigate what further advance notice can usefully and accurately be provided on the existing timeline and the quantity of secondary legislation that will follow the bill, subject to parliamentary timetables and decision making.

Further information will be given, too, on the role of rural support plans and the process of creating, amending and reporting on them. Under the CAP, a lot of work was done in developing the Scottish rural development programme as it currently exists, and we followed a set process for amending and reporting on the programme. A lot of that work went unseen and continues as we conclude the formal process of closing the EU 2014-20 programme this year. I want to learn the lessons from that—on what has and has not worked well—to help us inform the development of a rural support plan that meets our needs now and in the future, and how best to manage the new framework and its schemes in the future.

How and when we will monitor, evaluate and report on our support, including through a future monitoring and evaluation framework, will be included, too. Again, considerable reporting work is taking place on the EU SRDP and, last month, we commenced the formal ex-post evaluation for the entire 2014-20 programming period. What we spend and how we spend it on future support needs to be effectively monitored and evaluated. Substantial amounts of public funding are given to our farmers, crofters and land managers, and it is only right that we seek a meaningful return on that investment of public money and that progress can be charted in delivering on the bill’s objectives, outcomes and statutory duties.

I hope that the various points that I have outlined help to alleviate some of the concerns around the rural support plan sections as drafted and around the absence of explicit mention of monitoring and evaluation. I ask that, when considering the amendments, we do so on the basis of what I have outlined and that we take those issues away to collaboratively come back at stage 3 with a robust wraparound offer that involves amendments to the current provisions on the rural support plan.

I will turn to some of the specific amendments. Amendments 28, 29, 33, 34, 36, 39 and 41 require the Scottish ministers to prepare a plan by regulations. The purpose appears to be to ensure that each iteration of the plan is subject to prior approval by Parliament. I believe that that is too restrictive, because although Parliament must—and, of course, will—have its due place and, in particular, will be able to scrutinise all the secondary legislation that we need to put in place to support and deliver the plans, the Government also needs to be able to get on and develop and manage support for our farmers and communities, which means working with stakeholders and experts for that purpose.

We could not focus on the task at hand if Parliament had an on-going veto on the plans and proposals that we describe in successive plans and even, potentially, on quite modest changes. That would, for example, divert some of the finite resource that we have away from the co-development of future policy with industry and partners. The bill already sets clear requirements for the content, scrutiny and considerations of a plan, including that it is laid before Parliament. I have committed to returning to those issues with more explicit clarity at stage 3.

The actual detail of changes, including new schemes in the different tiers, will be provided for in secondary legislation using the proposed powers of the bill. That will provide parliamentary scrutiny, as I said, and it will also involve further consultation and the associated impact assessments. Parliament will also be able to scrutinise the plan at portfolio evidence sessions, during the budget process and through the various matters that are set out in section 3.

For those reasons, I consider that the existing levels of scrutiny, through a wide range of regulatory powers and responsibilities relating to different sections in the bill that relate to the rural support plan, are sufficient. Therefore, I hope that Colin Smyth agrees to withdraw or not move his amendments. If he does so, I urge members not to support them.

I understand the intent behind Colin Smyth’s amendment 112, but I do not believe that it is necessary. It is worth noting that there is already provision in that regard in the bill, which requires that a rural support plan

“sets out strategic priorities for providing support”

and

“a description of each support scheme”.

Section 3(2)(a) sets out that ministers “must have regard” to objectives that are

“set out in section 1”.

As I have set out, I intend to return at stage 3 with a much more explicit framing for the rural support plan and will consider how the plan might cover the proposals in Colin Smyth’s amendment 112. For those reasons, I believe that the amendment is not needed. I hope that Colin Smyth agrees and will not move it.

In relation to amendments 30 and 31, as I have outlined, I would love to be in a position to legislate to provide for a multi-annual financial framework in the bill. We had that certainty and clarity under the CAP, with the EU’s multi-annual financial framework but, unfortunately, the reality is that Westminster has not given any commitment on future funding or on what basis that might be provided. Currently, UK Government allocations are on an annual basis. There are no funding guarantees from 2025, and the current UK Government has refused to engage on the issue.

First of all, I disagree with your point about throwing a grenade at amendments. As I outlined in my comments, I think that there are lots of helpful things in these amendments, but there are contradictory points, too. Just as there are, as I have said, different consultation requirements to consider, there are different things to consider in various parts of the bill, and it is only right that we are able to look at all of this holistically and that we are not looking at amendments in a piecemeal way. I hope that, in everything that I have outlined with regard to all the areas that we want to look at and reconsider for stage 3, what I have said addresses some of the concerns that have been expressed.

On amendment 126, I would, as I noted in my response to amendments 28 and 29, point out that the Parliament’s committees have the essential role that has been referred to. I urge members not to support amendment 126 on that basis.

On amendment 127, I would just say that, as with Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 125, the amendments requiring consultation on the rural support plan provide no proportionality with regard to scale, which, again, could be routine. Accordingly, I ask Rachael Hamilton not to move amendment 127.

Amendment 128 seeks to define the rationale that Colin Smyth’s amendment 115 asks for in providing greater detail about schemes. Again, I welcome the positive intent behind the amendment, but I must ask members to resist it so that I can return at stage 3 with—as I have repeated many times—a more realistic and workable wraparound that sets out how ministers will provide details in the plan. I therefore ask the member not to move the amendment. If he does, I urge members not to support it.

Finally, on amendment 129, I hope that Colin Smyth will be reassured to know that it is always my intention to act in a manner that we

“consider best contributes to achieving the objectives”.

In fact, that is what I am seeking to do right now in relation to Scottish agriculture. Although I welcome the positive intent behind the amendment, I note that it takes out the current duties in the bill to prepare a plan and for ministers to exercise their functions while having regard to that plan. I am sure that that was not the intention behind the amendment. I therefore ask Colin Smyth not to move amendment 129. If he does, I urge committee members not to support it.

Sorry—if you had allowed me to come on to my next point, I was actually going to say that I agree with what you are trying to set out. It is helpful, as you have just said, to raise awareness of food miles and the importance of that. My only point is that it is not appropriate to provide for that in the rural support plan. There are a whole variety of issues in relation to food miles, and it is not solely for this bill to address them. I think, therefore, that the bill is not the appropriate place for what you have set out in amendment 120, and I ask you not to move it.

With regard to amendment 121, as I noted in my response to amendments 28 and 29, in the name of Colin Smyth, the Parliament and its committees will have an essential role in scrutinising the secondary legislation that will need to be approved in order for us to deliver on the plan. The amendment offers a further timing, and it would simply serve no practical purpose when that later scrutiny—alongside my offer for a more holistic set of duties around the plan—would ensure that the aspects of what, when, how, why and with whom are very clear. I ask Rachael Hamilton not to move amendment 121.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 35 proposes another arbitrary deadline for the production of the rural support plan—which would, if in effect, impede the development of the first plan. The first plan will need to take into account the final form of the bill on its becoming an act and the timing and detail of any secondary legislation that uses the powers of that act. The plan will need to deal with the transition between old and new support, as per the route map, with the detail being under active co-development. The deadline that is in amendment 35 would risk the short-term amendments to the plan as more detail of the transition period emerges. Overall, it would result in a sub-optimal plan that might not even reflect, as it needs to do, all the detail of the different tiers and schemes that will be set out in secondary legislation. On that basis, I ask Colin Smyth not to move amendment 35.

Similarly, Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 122 would require the publication of the rural support plan no later than six months after royal assent. For the reasons that I set out in relation to amendment 35, I urge members not to support amendment 122.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 123 takes us into a bit of a bidding war in relation to that. Again, for the reasons that I have already outlined, I ask members not to support amendment 123.

I understand the intent behind Tim Eagle’s amendment 124. Recipients of support want as much clarity and early notice as possible of future support plans. However, requiring the publication of subsequent plans 12 months before the end of the preceding plan period, instead of the six months that is currently in the bill, would leave limited time for review and evaluation, because we also have to undertake engagement and consultation on that. That change would therefore ultimately be unworkable, which is why I am not in favour of amendment 124.

As I made clear at stage 1 and in speaking to the foregoing amendments, the Scottish Government’s approach is always to co-develop with industry and wider partners to ensure that legislation and regulation are best fitted to work and deliver outcomes. Colin Smyth’s amendment 37 would cut across that activity. However, again, I understand the intent of that amendment and, as I set out in response to Alasdair Allan’s amendment 119, I want to give further thought to the requirements to consult that are in the bill. I therefore hope that Colin Smyth does not move amendment 37.

If taken in isolation, what amendment 38 would require the Scottish ministers to do would not be proportionate to the scale of any changes to the rural support plan, some of which could be minor in nature. Indeed, it could hold up what could simply be a routine or minor change as part of normal programme management. I have offered to ensure that a much clearer duty on monitoring and evaluating agricultural support is set out in stage 3 amendments. I therefore hope that Colin Smyth will not move amendment 38.

On amendment 39, as previously indicated, it would be unhelpful to require the rural support plan to be subject to regulations, especially given that there is already a commitment to lay the plan before Parliament and publish it. I therefore urge members not to support amendment 39.

I addressed the issue of arbitrary statutory consultation periods in response to Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 118. Amendment 125 presents the same issue applied to rural support plan amendments. It would provide no proportionality to the scale of any such amendment, which could be routine. I have already outlined that our approach is to always co-develop with our industry and wider partners and that I would report on how we do that, with whom and to what effect, in the rural support plan. I hope that what I have said offers some reassurance to Beatrice Wishart that there is no need to create such a statutory period and that she will not move amendment 125.

Amendment 40 would introduce an arbitrary requirement that does not provide any proportionality. It is restrictive and would divert finite resource away from the co-development of future policy with industry and our partners. Each and every time that ministers opted to amend a rural support plan, it would require a full review. As schemes and support will change over time—particularly during that initial phase and the transition period—that could turn out to be a meaningless exercise that does not provide any value simply because there is a statutory requirement to do it. I therefore hope that Colin Smyth does not move amendment 40.

On amendment 126, I noted in my response to amendments 28 and 29 that the Parliament and its committees have an essential role in scrutinising the secondary legislation that will be needed in order to deliver on that plan. I therefore urge members to reject amendment 126.

I was not going to make any more comments. I had already finished.

Absolutely. I appreciate that. We will go into more detail on that in discussing the next grouping, and I hope that what I set out will address many of the concerns that committee members and stakeholders have raised. We want to make sure that we look at that holistically and that whatever measures we introduce in that regard are introduced at the right place in the bill process, which I believe is at stage 3.