Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 134 would require support to be provided through multiyear budgets and ring-fenced funding. It is an important amendment that would give farmers and producers much-needed certainty about future support. Farms and crofts often work to long-term plans, which require certainty about future support. Farmers need to be able to plan for the future. The bill must therefore include a commitment to multiyear ring-fenced funding. We know that many stakeholders, such as NFU Scotland, Scottish Land & Estates and the food and agriculture stakeholders task force, support that.

The NFUS is calling for the five-year funding framework that the UK Government delivered for agriculture from 2019 to date to be repeated by the next UK Government, and the Agriculture Act 2020 sets in legislation the detail of a seven-year funding cycle. It is possible and realistic to have a commitment covering more than one year in the bill.

Amendment 136 would enshrine in the bill that any future peatland restoration or agroforestry support schemes would be accessible to tenant farmers. The amendment would help to remove barriers that tenant farmers often face when applying for support. I have been contacted by the Scottish Crofting Federation, which would also like crofters to be able to access some of those funding schemes. It is possible that we might end up working together on that amendment, cabinet secretary.

Amendment 138 would place a statutory duty on the Scottish Government to consult all relevant stakeholders on future agricultural support. Again, it is a very important amendment and is supported by key farming lobby groups. Similar to other amendments, and as noted in the stage 1 report, amendment 138 would provide much-needed reassurance to stakeholders by requiring a statutory consultation on future agricultural support.

I look forward to hearing colleagues’ explanations of other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 134.

Can the cabinet secretary direct me and my colleagues to the conditions that are set out, and the definition of “the public interest” test, whereby the Government agency would refuse to pay support? Where is that?

I will press my amendment, which is supported by the NFUS, SLE, FAST and others. Despite what the cabinet secretary has said, it is right that a definition of “the public interest” is brought forward in relation to section 10. The Government has the ability to do that and to allow Parliament to scrutinise it. It is important to give people clarity on the outcomes.

I was going to support Edward Mountain’s amendment 169, on removing section 10, although it is a bit of an oxymoron, but it sounds as though he is not going to move it. I am happy to support the other amendments in the group.

Will the member take an intervention?

I have no further comments, and I seek to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 204, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 29 agreed to.

Schedule 2—Repeals and minor modifications

Amendments 18 and 19 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 30 and 31 agreed to.

Section 32—Index of defined terms

Amendment 205 not moved.

Section 32 agreed to.

Sections 33 and 34 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

I am a little bit confused by Ariane Burgess’s amendments. Innovation and technology are supporting farmers to make efficiencies and cut their costs. I am very much supportive of ensuring that labour is part of the whole farming and agricultural landscape, and we know that it is, as it supports rural communities, but are you saying that, in order to get support, farmers need to increase the number of people they employ, even if they do not need them?

We discussed this matter last week. As I said, the stage 1 committee report on the bill notes that

“A definition of ‘high-quality food’ is not provided in either the Bill or the accompanying documents.”

If the Scottish Government is asking farmers and food producers to deliver “high-quality food”, it is important that the Government is clear about what it means by that.

Pete Ritchie of Nourish Scotland stated in evidence to the committee:

“it is bad law to put ‘high-quality food’ on the face of the bill if there is no intention to define it.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 13 December 2023; c 8.]

Others disagreed with that. However, as I stated in committee last week, we were previously told by Scottish Government officials that high-quality food relates to

“unadulterated produce that comes out of the ground and that is produced under the basic standards and expectations of Scottish agriculture”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 29 November 2023; c 4.]

To me, that is meaningless.

Last week, the cabinet secretary further suggested that,

“if people comply with the high, rigorous standards that we”

—the Scottish Government—

“have in place, that will meet the definition of high-quality food.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 8 May 2024; c 13.]

That statement does not chime with the previous statement by Scottish Government officials, so there is clearly disagreement, or no official line, on the matter.

Does the cabinet secretary intend to provide a clear definition of “high-quality” in the rural support plan? If so, would she be happy to discuss an amendment to that effect before stage 3?

I move amendment 204.

Will Ariane Burgess take an intervention?

Will the cabinet secretary share with the committee what information the UK Government has shared with her and the Scottish Government about the timeframe for announcing future funding—for example, in the next spending review?

Ms Burgess, I am minded to support a lot of your amendments, but I have noticed that you have chosen not to move a lot of them. Is that because you plan to come back at stage 3 with those amendments, or will you stay true to the intention that you have described and move the amendments so that we can understand whether we will be supporting them? I also wonder why you did not support my own amendment on soil health and the objectives.