Seòmar agus comataidhean

Convener, I ask you to allow me to finish the rest of my points, which set out the rationale for the approach that we have taken and how we want to work with members on the amendments that they have lodged in order to find a way forward.

I do not think that it is fair to look at the overall timescales. We introduced the bill on the back of the consultation that we undertook, and we are trying to provide a bit more certainty over the period. It should be recognised that we have introduced a framework bill. As I have said previously, it is important to remember that we are talking about the foundation of our approach to developing future policy. As I outlined in relation to what the first plan might look like, we are going through a transition, and we are trying to develop policy with our farmers and crofters. I commit to working with members around the table so that we can get the plan into a shape that, I hope, will allow everybody to come together to support it.

I return to my comments. It is key that we manage the transition through the first rural support plan and that we take farmers and crofters with us without creating unnecessary stress or dislocation. We need to ensure that, when we set up the requirements for the scrutiny, content and role of the plan, the plan is able to function now, with what we have, and will be able to function in the future with what we are co-developing.

I ask members not to move amendments 114 to 116, 38, 40 and 128. In return, I commit to taking every proposed amendment away for consideration and to engaging collaboratively with members of Parliament and stakeholders. I want to come back at stage 3 with a robust set of amendments that cover the rural support plan and our approach to monitoring and evaluation, thereby providing a wraparound approach to the issues that have been raised in this group.

Again, I ask Rachael Hamilton to allow me to get back to my comments so that I can set out what will be included.

We have had a number of conversations with stakeholders, and there has been the information that the committee has received. We are all pushing in the same direction in relation to what we want to achieve, so I hope that we can work constructively to achieve that.

Again, coming back to my comments and what I am committing to do and the issues that we will cover in relation to the rural support plan, it will cover our strategic priorities for providing support and the outcomes that we expect it to deliver. That will be important in setting the scene for a reporting period and giving everyone a clear understanding of what we are doing, why we are doing it and what we are seeking to achieve from the activity and support.

I expect the UK Government to at least engage in a conversation with us, so that we know what kind of allocation there will be and we can have a dialogue about what that budget might look like. That engagement was promised as part of the Bew review, but that conversation, despite our pursuing it, has never taken place.

I am sorry, but I do not understand the point that you are trying to make.

The UK Government was able to do so previously, so I do not understand why it is not able to do so now and why it cannot engage in conversation with us about what future allocations might look like.

It is important to be clear that we get the confirmation of a budget only on an annual basis from the UK Government. We get an indicative allocation, which is confirmed on an annual basis, so that could fluctuate from year to year.

As I have outlined, we want to work in that space and be as helpful as possible within the limitations that we have, but we are within severe limitations when it comes to making commitments on multi-annual frameworks and funding going forward.

As I have already outlined, I want to look at what we are able to do in that space. We want to provide as much certainty and clarity to people as we can. I recognise how important that is for future planning for our farmers and crofters, but I cannot commit to something that I am not able to deliver. Based on the comments that I have already outlined in relation to the rural support plan, that is an area that I want to consider.

I would like to continue and to make progress on the other amendments.

I am conscious that we have covered a lot already, but there are still a number of areas to get through.

On amendment 114, although evaluation of programmes is our standard approach—our ex post evaluation of programmes under the EU CAP is currently under way—it is important that we do not restrict the timescale or the method for, or the publication of, evaluations. There will be some things that can be reliably reported on within a planned period, but others will require more by way of longitudinal research.

We need to ensure that our monitoring and evaluation of plans, outcomes and the overall framework are robust. Our rural and environment science and analytical services division—RESAS—is preparing an agricultural reform programme monitoring and evaluation framework. It is important that we are clear about what can be reliably delivered and evidenced within planned periods and what might require a longer timeframe.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 114 presupposes that each plan will directly replicate what was in the previous plan. However, as we know, schemes and support will—we would hope—change over time, so that could turn out to be a meaningless exercise, which would require to be carried out simply because there was a statutory requirement to carry out evaluations. For those reasons, I ask Rachael Hamilton not to move amendment 114, so that I can return at stage 3 to provide more detail on what can usefully be included in the bill that can be achieved in this area. If the amendment is moved, I urge members not to support it.

I think that Colin Smyth’s amendment 32 is unnecessary, as it asks for the provision of baseline financial and funding information that is already available every year through the budget process. I am happy to send on the links to the level 4 budgets for the current year to reassure him that that information is already publicly available. That being the case, I hope that he will not move amendment 32.

I have some sympathy with elements of Colin Smyth’s amendment 115, and I understand what he is trying to achieve. As I set out in my introductory remarks on the group, the purpose of the rural support plan is to offer clarity and certainty as to how the powers that are sought in the bill are to be used. I ask members to allow me to return at stage 3 with a more holistic and—crucially—workable wraparound that sets out clearly how ministers will cover the detail of the plan. That will include consideration of the requirements that are listed in amendment 115. On that basis, I ask Colin Smyth not to move amendment 115. If he moves it, I urge members not to support it.

The same applies to Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 116. In particular, I would very much like to be able to set out the sources of funding, but, as I have already outlined, until the UK Government engages in discussions on future budgets, it will continue to cause uncertainty.

On amendment 117, I reassure Rachael Hamilton and others that I fully intend to ensure that we have a scheme that effectively supports new and young entrants to farming. However, it would not be appropriate to provide for that in the way that is proposed in what we have agreed should be a framework bill. That aspect will feature in one of the tiers that will be co-developed with key stakeholders, which will, of course, be subject to regulations that Parliament will have an opportunity to scrutinise. I hope that that reassures Rachael Hamilton and that she will not move amendment 117.

I understand the intent behind Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 118, and I hope that I can reassure her that it is not needed, given the significant amount of engagement and consultation that the Scottish Government already undertakes on a wide range of matters that will form the new framework and tiers. We have a long-standing commitment to co-development with rural partners, and we continue to engage closely with them. The agricultural reform programme is responsible for managing the co-development process from design through to delivery and for ensuring that that process is communicated through the route map. That approach is rooted in the Scottish approach to service design, whereby we actively work with our farmers, crofters and land managers to develop and test our future framework.

The detail of changes, including the detail of new schemes in the different tiers, will be provided for in secondary legislation, using the powers that are proposed the bill. That will involve further consultation through the associated impact assessments, along with parliamentary scrutiny. As I have made clear, our approach is always to co-develop with our industry and wider partners to ensure that legislation and regulation are best fitted to work and deliver to outcomes. I have already committed to reporting on how we do that, with whom and to what effect in the rural support plan. I hope that that reassures Beatrice Wishart that there is no need to create a statutory consultation period of the kind that she has set out and that she will not move amendment 118. If she moves it, I ask members not to support it.

Alasdair Allan’s amendment 119 helpfully identifies an issue that applies right across the bill and across all the groupings. We have a range of existing commitments to consult on proposed changes, which are, I think, inconsistent in their framing, particularly in relation to whom should be consulted with. That is why I propose again that, ahead of stage 3, Government officials will review all the current and proposed additional consultation requirements, to ensure that they are appropriate and proportionate, that we consult where it is necessary or most useful, and that there is consistency in the framing where that is important. Accordingly, I ask Alasdair Allan not to move his amendment 119, to allow that to happen.

I am more than happy to follow up with the committee afterwards. However, in relation to discussing and taking forward the amendments, the approach that the committee is outlining would be quite unorthodox. I want to work with different members and consider their amendments in order to achieve all that I have outlined.

We are not cutting across the competences of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. That is still its remit and responsibility, and we are not changing its powers with the bill. I ask the committee to accept amendment 5.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 130 reflects a change that was proposed by amendment 129, which I also oppose, not least because I do not think that it has the intended effect. For the reasons that I explained in relation to amendment 129, I ask members to reject amendment 130.

I turn to amendment 131. Scotland shares the EU’s founding principles and core values and, through the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021, is already committed to maintaining alignment with EU laws and policy, where that is practicable. Aligning the Scottish Government’s future policy with the objectives and policy developments of CAP 2023-27, where practicable, ensures that, if Scotland has the opportunity to re-enter the EU in the future, it will be in a position to do so.

I appreciate that that is in direct contrast with the aims of Rachael Hamilton, who wishes to continue to impose on the people of Scotland the outcome of a Brexit that we did not vote for and that is proving disastrous for Scotland’s economy and society. However, it is important that we take what steps we can to mirror what may develop in the EU, not least to ensure that we can continue to trade there. I therefore encourage the committee to reject amendment 131.

I understand and share the motivation behind Rhoda Grant’s amendment 43, and that of Brian Whittle’s amendment 44. High-quality nutritious food that is locally and sustainably produced is key to our economic, environmental and social wellbeing and our health. That is why one objective in the bill is

“the production of high-quality food”.

As drafted, the bill commits ministers to have regard to

“any other statutory duty ... relating to agriculture or the environment”.

As we have touched on, that will include the good food nation plans. That will ensure consideration in the rural support plan of any proposals and policies that are in the good food nation plan. The bill will ensure that farmers, crofters and land managers have the right support to contribute to our good food nation ambitions and local food strategy.

Similarly, as drafted, the bill already involves consideration of the objectives of a plan that is produced under section 1 of the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022. Although I absolutely acknowledge the positive intent of amendment 44, I do not believe that it is required. Neither is amendment 43 necessary. Having reassured both Rhoda Grant and Brian Whittle, I hope that they will not move their respective amendments. If they do, I encourage the committee to reject them.

Amendment 45 would require the Scottish ministers to have regard to

“any other financial support provided by the Scottish Government to agriculture and rural communities”

when preparing or amending a rural support plan. The effect of that amendment is unclear. If, for example, we give support to a young farmer for continuing professional development, do we have to take into account their bursary or free tuition for an initial qualification? The amendment could also mean that a community that gets a grant from the Scottish land fund to purchase land might not then be eligible for support from a future LEADER-type scheme that could help to build the capacity of that community organisation to best manage its assets.

I hope that those examples have illustrated why amendment 45 could be problematic. We need to be wary of unintended consequences. For that reason, I encourage the committee to reject amendment 45.

I accept the premise of amendment 46, as I understand that land and agriculture are inherently linked—not least because I have portfolio responsibility for both areas. However, land is already covered in the reference to “environment”, and we are seeking to be more explicit in our references to “land” through other amendments. For that reason, I encourage the committee to reject Rhoda Grant’s amendment 46.

I fully agree with the intent behind Emma Harper’s amendment 47 and I am happy to support it. The Scottish Government understands the importance of food security and the interest in the issue from members of the committee as well as our wider stakeholders. Amendment 47 would ensure that ministers have regard to

“the need for sustainable food systems and supply chains in delivering food security”

when we prepare or update a rural support plan.

I am happy to support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 48, and I hope that the committee will support it, too. Small producers, tenant farmers, crofters and agricultural co-operative societies make a vital contribution to our diverse agricultural industry, and diversity is important to ensuring innovation, sustainability, resilience and, ultimately, food security for Scotland and its rural communities. Amendment 48 supports that and seeks to require the Scottish ministers to have regard to

“the benefits of a diverse and resilient agricultural sector including small producers, tenant farmers, crofters and agricultural co-operative societies”

when preparing or amending their rural support plan.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 49 would add a requirement to consult a range of “relevant persons”, and provides a wide list of those persons and organisations. I absolutely understand the intention behind and desire for that amendment, which is to ensure that we consult widely on issues. We already do that and will absolutely continue to do that. The Scottish Government also has a statutory requirement to carry out a range of consultations with public bodies in different circumstances as well as impact assessments in a wide range of circumstances.

As I have already talked about at length today, the co-developed nature of our future agricultural support framework ensures that we are constantly engaging with rural partners. We also have the agriculture reform implementation oversight board, which is supported by an academic advisory panel, to ensure that we take an evidence-based approach to our future proposals.

The route map that I have talked about is designed to provide our farmers, crofters, land managers and the general public with information on what we are planning when and how we will do that. The process of secondary legislation that will be required to make those future proposals a reality has requirements built in through impact assessments, including the strategic environmental assessment.

I have already set out my intention to introduce a more robust package on the rural support plan that will include detail of our continued agricultural reform programme engagement. That will include details of who and how we must consult. I will carefully consider Colin Smyth’s amendment and the bodies that he listed as part of that. I ask Colin Smyth not to press his amendment 130 and to allow me to work with him to bring forward something ahead of stage 3. If amendment 130 is agreed to today, I might wish to come back with some revised wording at stage 3, but I would be happy to engage with members on that.

I appreciate the concerns that members have set out regarding the level of scrutiny of some of the enabling powers in the bill and the desire to see more details about our intentions to bring forward the secondary legislation. I am also grateful for the report of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which broadly supported the proposed procedural treatment for legislation to be brought forward under the bill.

Amendment 132 would require the Scottish ministers to publish a timetable and further details of regulations made under the act as “soon as practicable” after royal assent. I have spoken at length, today and in the stage 1 debate, about my commitment to co-developing future schemes, and I would not want to pre-empt or rush that co-development in order to publish such a timetable.

The agricultural route map, which was updated earlier this year, outlines the support that remains available to continue to provide stability for farmers and crofters as that future support is co-designed. It also provides information and guidance on the phased approach to introducing the new support framework and on when the industry can expect new support to be made available. I will, of course, continue to update the route map as we move through that process.

It would also be my intention to provide Parliament with as much information and notice as possible on many of the proposed statutory instruments at various points once the bill is passed. I understand completely the need to enable Parliament and its committees to prepare their work programmes, and I do not think that surprises in relation to that work would be in anybody’s interest. I hope that that reassures members and encourages them not to support the amendment.

In relation to amendment 139, the bill is a framework bill and we expect to make a significant number of regulations during the delivery phase. An affirmative instrument would require significantly more resource and support than a negative one, and scrutiny for the enabling powers in the bill has been set at a level that will help us to deliver the substantial change that is needed.

Any change to the list of purposes of the bill is expected to be modest in scope and to come about following engagement with the sector and stakeholders as part of the co-design process of future schemes, which, as I continue to reiterate, we are fully committed to. Therefore, I still consider that it would be proportionate for that power to be subject to the negative procedure, so I do not support Tim Eagle’s amendment 139.

Section 7 provides for ministers to be able to make negative regulations about guidance—for example, requiring that specified guidance is laid before Parliament, or that decision makers must have regard to particular guidance. Amendment 156 would require any regulations that are made under section 7 to be subject to the affirmative procedure. I do not think that that would be proportionate, particularly in the case of minor changes to guidance. I therefore ask the committee to reject amendment 156.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 168 would change the parliamentary procedure for regulations that are made under section 10 from negative to affirmative. The circumstances in which it might be appropriate to refuse or recover support vary widely. For example, it might be appropriate to refuse support to a person with a relevant conviction, such as in relation to support of livestock activities where the person has been convicted of an animal cruelty offences. When ministers make regulations for such purposes, it is important that we do so timeously and without delay, as facts and events emerge. It is vital that we ensure that public funds are being appropriately allocated, but we also recognise that refusal or recovery of funds can have a significant impact on a business. It is important that the regulations on refusal and recovery of funds receive appropriate scrutiny, but I am confident that our commitment to transparent decision making ensures that the negative procedure is still suitable here. Given that, I urge the committee to reject the amendment.

Section 13 of the bill is the main power under which regulations about support will be made. I expect there to be a considerable number of regulations that are made under that power and regulations that are made and thereafter adjusted in light of experience and changing circumstances. Therefore, the procedure in the bill is what is sometimes described as an “either-way power”, which allows for the procedure for scrutiny to be chosen according to the significance, or otherwise, of what is to be done. That is designed to ensure that the valuable time of Parliament is utilised in an appropriate and proportionate way.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 77 would require any change by regulation, no matter how minor, to be subject to the affirmative procedure. The amendment does not provide for any proportionality in relation to the scale of a change that might be made, and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in particular agreed that that power should be an either-way power. For that reason, I ask the committee not to support that amendment.

Amendment 172 would make all regulations under section 13, which relate to administrative matters, eligibility and enforcement, subject to the affirmative procedure. I think that it would also remove proportionality and bring minor administrative changes into scope. Section 13(5) of the bill as drafted sets out what significant provisions would require the affirmative procedure. As I believe that approach to be proportionate and sensible, I encourage the committee not to support Tim Eagle’s amendment 172.

Amendment 184 would change the procedure to affirmative for any regulations made under section 18 for the processing of information. It is worth noting that, in its report, which was published in January, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee accepted the choice of negative procedure for section 18 regulations, agreeing with our choice of procedure and our reasons for that choice as stated in our delegated powers memorandum. The negative procedure is the appropriate procedure, as the power in this section will be exercised only for the purpose of ensuring that information used for administrative purposes and information that is shared when there is a public interest in doing so is processed lawfully. The appropriate privacy impact assessments will be carried out and there will, in particular, be consultation with the Information Commissioner’s Office. We consider the negative procedure to be appropriate in this case, as it will provide a suitable level of scrutiny in respect of regulations made under the power. For that reason, I ask the committee not to support amendment 184.

On amendment 87, the bill places a duty on Scottish ministers to prepare and publish a code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture. The code meets stakeholder expectation to provide a clearer understanding of the breadth of regenerative practice, and it will be a guidance document to assist in the delivery of sustainable and regenerative agriculture. It is separate from any conditionality that is linked to support, and it is not intended to be a form of regulation or enforcement. Instead, it will provide helpful guidance that can be readily updated to help farmers, crofters and land managers to adopt a range of sustainable and regenerative practices.

There is a duty on Scottish ministers, prior to publication, to lay any code or revised code before Parliament and to ensure that Parliament is able to see and comment on the code. Amendment 87, when read with amendment 84, which is in a later group, would make the code a regulation subject to the affirmative procedure, which would significantly change the nature of the guidance. It is inappropriate for material of such nature to be in a statutory instrument let alone to have such regulation subject to the affirmative procedure. I therefore ask the committee not to support amendment 87.

On amendment 90, earlier in the year, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the parliamentary procedure to be used in the bill, including in section 27(1), and its subsequent report indicated that it was content for section 27 to be subject to the negative procedure. The Scottish Government’s response highlighted, among other things, our intention to co-design a CPD regime with stakeholders. We have already commenced that process with an informal consultation on an agricultural knowledge and innovation system, which includes CPD, and we plan to consult formally on the CPD regime next year. That will ensure that the CPD regime works for industry and that it is appropriate, proportionate and adds value. Regulations brought under section 27(1) will accordingly be informed by a significant amount of stakeholder input and are often likely to involve technical and detailed matters. In the light of those points, and our agreement with the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s assessment of the procedure, I ask committee members not to support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 90.