Seòmar agus comataidhean

The bill as introduced confers a wide range of powers but with few checks and balances. The intention behind amendment 109 is to find a way to increase the accountability relating to the policy while improving the governance of agricultural policy. The agriculture budget is substantial and, in my view, there needs to be a mechanism to ensure that the way in which that public money is spent is clearly connected to the objectives and is demonstrably in the public interest.

The objectives themselves are very broadly written and, sadly, that has not been changed by amendments in the previous grouping. Establishing indicators and targets would give a much clearer sense of what outcomes the Government is trying to achieve. Leaving any meaningful direction on what our targets should be entirely to the Government, so that it can do what it likes through the rural support plan, does not provide the scrutiny that we should expect. That simply gives the Government free rein, especially given the vagueness of the objectives. That is what the Government would want, of course, and I think that Rachael Hamilton is entirely right in saying that the lack of detail in the intentions of the rural support plan is inexcusable. That is the reason why I lodged my amendments.

Amendment 150 is a modest amendment that places a duty on ministers to outline the distributional impact of funding schemes. Anyone who is opposed to that does not have a lot of credibility, frankly, if they say that they support a fairer distribution of support. It will not have escaped the attention of environmental groups across Scotland who are watching this meeting that the Scottish Greens have completely sold out on amendments in group 1 on placing the environment at the heart of the bill. In opposing the amendments in this group, they will surpass themselves.

I would say to the cabinet secretary that promising something in the future that we do not know about is a way of opposing an amendment at this stage, and that does not give us any basis for doing so. I will certainly press and move my amendments, although I will not hold my breath on their being agreed to. I hope that what the cabinet secretary has to say on the future direction of the rural support plan alleviates my concerns.

I press amendment 109.

I will speak to amendment 28 and to my other amendments in this group. The aim of amendments 28, 29, 33, 34, 36, 39 and 41 is to ensure that the rural support plan has appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, so that ministers cannot make changes without accountability. After discussion with the Parliament’s bill team, it became apparent that the only way in which to do that was to introduce the rural support plan by regulation and to make those regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.

The rural support plan is likely to have a greater influence on the lives of agricultural workers, farmers and crofters than the bill itself, so it would be wrong to allow ministers of current or future Governments unchecked power to simply draft the rural support plan as they please without proper scrutiny by Parliament.

Amendment 112 would require that the rural support plan sets out definitions and outcomes for the bill’s objectives, as well as how ministers intend to achieve those outcomes. It is widely acknowledged that one of the reasons why we fail to meet our climate targets, for example, is that the Government has lots of plans and strategies but often has no clear route map for how those plans and strategies will be implemented to meet their objectives. We need to avoid that when it comes to the rural support plan and ensure that the plan contains a clear route map for delivering the objectives that the bill sets.

Amendments 30 and 31 seek to ensure that a clear requirement is placed on ministers in the bill to include an indicative multi-annual financial framework in the rural support plan. That would provide certainty to the sector and enable farmers and crofters to invest, plan better and deliver on the required outcomes that we expect from them in relation to the plan. It would also provide certainty for the Scottish Government in the delivery of new support mechanisms. We know that our farmers and crofters work to a long timescale and that the environmental actions that will be needed will require repeated funding over a period of years. From 2019, the UK Government has delivered a five-year funding framework for agriculture, so there is precedent for doing that.

Amendments 30 and 31 are linked to amendment 115, and the consequential amendment 113, which also includes the need for

“indicative proportionality of multi-year budgets”,

along with other requirements for the rural support plan.

I made the point earlier that the bill is very much a framework bill and that the most important decisions will be made afterwards through the rural support plan. It is therefore imperative that parliamentarians, stakeholders and those whom the rural support plan will impact—namely, our farmers, crofters and rural communities—have a clear understanding of what each rural support plan will include.

Of equal importance is the chance to scrutinise those plans, especially in relation to how they will interact with the objectives that are set in law. That is why the schemes should be required to state their objectives and rationale as well as their expected uptake. The former ensures that the schemes are kept in line with the framework bill’s objectives and the latter ensures that value for money is achieved. Equally, there should be information on how funding will be monitored. That would help to establish where the best value for money is being delivered in line with the objectives.

Amendment 32 seeks to ensure that the rural support plan establishes baseline figures, which would allow proper analysis to be carried out of the progress that is being made in delivering the bill’s objectives.

Given that the rural support plan will have a significant impact on agricultural workers, farmers and crofters—arguably more so than the bill itself, as I have said—it is important that the plan is not delayed any further. Amendment 35, in a similar way to amendment 122, seeks to set in legislation a date by which the first rural support plan should be delivered.

I apologise, convener, but I have managed to avoid speaking to several of my amendments.

They are on a different page of my notes. I appreciate that there are a lot of amendments, convener, so I thank you for your patience.

Amendment 37 sets out a requirement that the Scottish ministers should consult before amending the rural support plan under section 2(5).

Amendments 38 and 40 provide more opportunities for scrutiny and transparency around the reasons and motivations for amending the plan, including evaluating progress to date when setting those future plans.

Amendment 128 seeks to set out in greater detail what is meant by “rationale”. The objectives of each scheme should be detailed so that they are in keeping with the objectives of the framework legislation. To make that more robust, a justification for the intervention must be made. In addition, to ensure that there is value for money, there should be an analysis of the use of public funds to make sure that the objectives are being delivered in a cost-effective manner. As part of that, it is important that there is an explanation of the decision-making process when deciding on particular schemes, including on the evaluation of similar schemes.

Amendment 129—you will be pleased to know that this is the final amendment I will speak to in this group—reiterates earlier amendments 92 and 101 to introduce a clear link between the objectives in the bill and the decisions made by ministers through the rural support plan.

I move amendment 28.

I am finished.

Yes.

Is it, therefore, the aim of the Government that, in the rural support plan, you will set out indicative budgets for future years?

I am pleased to speak to amendment 92 and my other amendments in the group. Section 1 sets out the overarching objectives of agricultural policy. Those objectives will influence the rural support plan, which is required to set out the expected use of the powers in section 4 to provide support through various payments and other schemes that will implement agricultural policy in practice. As such, section 1 describes the overall purpose of the bill and its various provisions.

As drafted, the objectives include a mix of outcomes and processes that seek to achieve those outcomes, but the link to the implementation of policies is currently unclear. The aim of amendment 92 is to include a clearer purpose clause that provides a clearer link between the overarching policy objectives and the rural support plan. My intention was that the overarching purpose clause would include the objectives rather than just refer to them, but I was conscious that members would be lodging amendments to the various objectives.

As members know, the bill as introduced includes four objectives. They are broadly appropriate, but the separation of

“sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices”

from

“the production of high-quality food”

is, in many ways, problematic. Agricultural practices are the means of producing high-quality food, so there is very much a link to how we produce that high-quality food and other farm products.

Amendment 95 proposes that sustainable food production become a clear overarching purpose of agricultural policy through the first objective of the production of high-quality food

“using sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices”.

I appreciate that agricultural practices are also deployed to produce products that are not, or do not directly become, food, including farm products such as feedstuff for animals, crops for energy or fibre, and animals that are kept as pets or for riding. My amendment addresses that through the addition of the term “and other farm products”.

Amendment 3 seeks to add “to improve animal welfare” to the overarching objectives of agricultural policy. Although the welfare of animals is referred to in the bill’s long title, that does not have any legal authority, so it is an omission to exclude animal welfare from the objectives. Amendment 3 and, in a slightly longer way, amendment 22 seek to address that.

We have a moral obligation to the millions of sentient animals in our food systems to ensure that we have the highest possible standards. As I said in the stage 1 debate, Scotland’s farmers cannot and will not compete in a race to the bottom on pricing standards. High-quality food is produced to the highest possible animal welfare standards, and the bill’s objectives should reflect that. If we placed an obligation on our farmers and crofters to adapt to, for example, a new regulation on animal welfare and health, supporting them to make those improvements would be perfectly reasonable and a legitimate use of agricultural support.

Amendments 98 to 100 seek to strengthen the wording of an existing objective—objective (c)—for a number of reasons. First, the use of the word “facilitation” in objective (c) is, in my view, too weak. Secondly, the use of the phrase “on-farm nature restoration” is flawed in two respects. It is limited to restoration, but protection is also important and a valid objective. It is also limited through the use of the phrase “on-farm”. Although the activities that may be supported will be on farms, the impacts, consequences and objectives of those activities might be wider. For example, species that are allowed to breed successfully on a farm will expand to wider areas, and good habitat management on a farm will have an impact on water quality and flood management downstream. Therefore, I do not believe that the use of the phrase “on-farm” is necessary, and it could have consequences for the range of activities that might be supported that, ultimately, go beyond farms.

The wording of the terms relating to climate and nature should relate more directly to those that are used in similar legislation, such as the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991. That is what amendments 99 and 100 seek to achieve.

On amendments 103 to 106, evidence that was given to the committee during stage 1 shows that there is widespread concern about the narrowly drawn list of objectives. Beyond the overarching objectives, some detailed purposes are set out in schedule 1. In comparison, the Agriculture (Wales) Act 2023 provides additional guidance on the interpretation and application of its land management objectives. Amendments 103 to 106 recognise that detailed purposes are set out in schedule 1, but they adopt the Welsh approach of providing further explanation of how the overarching objectives should be interpreted.

Amendment 107 proposes that a duty be introduced on ministers to act in accordance with the objectives of the bill. Similar wording on duties exists in other Scottish legislation.

Finally, you will be pleased to know, convener, amendment 108 would provide by regulation the power to amend the objectives of agricultural policy, but any such amendments must be made by affirmative procedure.

I move amendment 92.

On amendment 92, enabling bills such as this one would give Governments wide-ranging powers; they are a powerful tool for those Governments and will be for a long time into the future. The cabinet secretary might be clear about the purpose and the link with the objectives, but the bill is not, and it is by no means certain that a future Government would be so clear, too. My purpose clause seeks to focus the powers conferred by the bill on the delivery of the objectives, instead of giving some future Government completely free rein, which, in my view, the bill currently does.

I would just note that Ariane Burgess’s concerns about the wording of the clause could be dealt with at stage 3. It would be deeply disappointing to oppose the view of Scotland’s environmental groups on the need for a clear purpose clause in the bill by opposing the amendment on the basis of the need for a tweak in the wording at stage 3.

Contrary to what the cabinet secretary has said, amendment 94 does not detract from the importance of food production. Instead, it recognises that agricultural practices are the means to produce high-quality food and that, as a result, they should be carried out in a sustainable way.

On amendments 103 to 106, the cabinet secretary says that the wording of the objectives is wide. In my view, the objectives are vague, and we do not really know what some of the aims are. Effectively, the cabinet secretary is saying that everything and anything proposed in the amendments is already covered in some way by the objectives, but that is far from clear. For example, what does the Government mean by

“enabling rural communities to thrive”?

That could cover a multitude of areas. I understand why Governments want vague objectives—it gives them free rein to do whatever they want when drafting the rural support plan—but providing more detail and definitions will ensure that specific issues are covered, instead of our operating as suggested by the cabinet secretary, who says that such issues might be covered.

As for the issue of animal welfare, I did not hear any objections to amendments 3 and 22, which is a welcome recognition that, if we do not include a commitment to animal welfare in the objectives, we cannot guarantee that the standards that apply now will always apply, let alone be improved. In my view, that was a clear omission by the Government in the bill as introduced. I am conscious that amendment 22 is similar to my amendment 3, so, if amendment 22 is agreed to, I will not need to move amendment 3.

I will end on a positive note by thanking the cabinet secretary very much for supporting amendment 108, and I hope that the committee will do so, too.

I press amendment 92.

Amendment 109, in my name, seeks to introduce a duty on ministers to set and achieve specific targets and indicators in relation to the bill’s overarching objectives. It is important to stress that the amendment does not seek to set those targets in the text of the bill; it merely places the duty in the bill, while the targets themselves would be set by ministers through secondary legislation. That would get the balance right between not making the primary legislation too restrictive and making it clear that there should be measurable indicators and that those should, ultimately, be voted on by Parliament to provide appropriate scrutiny.

Amendment 150, in my name, seeks to ensure that the distributional impact of future support is assessed and transparent in relation to budgets, farm size and income. It also seeks to ensure that the application of the fairer Scotland duty, as set out in part 1 of the Equality Act 2010, is also reported on and transparent.

Having regard to the impacts of policy in terms of distributional inequalities is a key aspect of a just transition to a future net zero world. The amendment would serve to ensure that, as agricultural policy encourages a transition, it does so in a just and fair way.

The common agricultural policy 2023-27 includes a mandatory redistribution of income support, with EU countries required to dedicate at least 10 per cent of their direct payments to the redistributive income support tool, increasing the income of small and medium-sized farmers. In contrast, the modest amendment that I have lodged does not go as far as that; it would simply place a duty on ministers to outline the distributional impact of funding schemes and to consider methods of redistribution in scheme designs.

I hope, therefore, that the committee will be able to support both amendments 109 and 150.

I move amendment 109.

The cabinet secretary said that there was a lot to cover in her comments—she was certainly correct. She has made a number of commitments to address some of the long-standing concerns that there have been about the lack of direction in relation to the rural support plan. However, as you said, convener, much of that should have been covered by amendments from the cabinet secretary at stage 2.

Turning to the amendments that are before us, I note that the aim of setting out the rural support plan in regulations is to improve the scrutiny that it receives. High levels of scrutiny are warranted because of the amount of public money that is involved. We want to avoid a situation in which the Government is required to produce a plan but it simply gets laid before Parliament and receives little scrutiny. The Government might meet the terms of the legislation as they currently stand, but the public interest would be ill served. The question that we need to ask is: who benefits from a lack of scrutiny? It is certainly not in the interest of Parliament or of the public for a plan simply to be nodded through. The cabinet secretary said that one concern is the potential for Parliament to veto the plan, but I have to say that, if the Government cannot get its plan through Parliament, that says more about the plan itself.

On amendment 35 and the timescales for the rural support plan, the reality is that, as a number of members have said, we should have had a draft rural support plan before now. The Government has known for years that that is needed, so it cannot be delayed any further. Stability and certainty are what our agriculture sector needs most, so we need to put the plan in front of it as soon as possible, with no more delays. The cabinet secretary said that, on the one hand, having the rural support plan made by regulation would cause delays but that, on the other, she opposes an amendment that sets a clear timescale in which the plan would be brought forward.

On amendments 30 and 31, I would be happy to meet the cabinet secretary to discuss how fast she thinks she can go in the important area of multiyear funding, with a view to either lodging an alternative set of amendments to 30 and 31 or bringing back the existing amendments. I stress that there is a need to have, at the very least, robust and indicative multiyear funding commitments within the rural support plan. Local authorities often have indicative multiyear funding in their budgets, and I see no reason why the Scottish Government cannot have, at the very least, indicative multiyear funding, to give some reassurance to the sector.

I will be happy to discuss amendment 115 and the consequential amendment 113 further with the cabinet secretary, along with amendment 37, on consultation.

Finally, all that amendment 128 does is provide greater detail. History has shown that a bill without the specifics of a plan could end up being a very lightweight document. We need robust governance in the public interest. Allowing the Government too much leeway, so that it can produce a plan that is not worth the name, is not in anyone’s interest. There is precedent for the specific approach in the climate change plan, which is set out in legislation. Again, I am happy to discuss amendment 128 with the cabinet secretary.

I am not entirely sure, from the exchange that we have just had, which amendments the cabinet secretary is willing to discuss further and which are just not to be taken forward. I might press a number of amendments that the cabinet secretary has indicated that she wishes to discuss further, but that is simply because I am quite lost. Rachael Hamilton was right when she said that a grenade has been thrown at the amendments. A lot of this detail should have been set before the committee long before stage 2.

I press amendment 28.