Seòmar agus comataidhean

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Amendment 204, by agreement, withdrawn.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.

I will press amendment 134. I am disappointed that the cabinet secretary does not agree with the concept of ring-fenced funding. In 2022, the Scottish Government received £33 million following a 2019 UK-wide review into the fair allocation of farming support. That cash was intended for agricultural support, but it should have been spent on rural affairs. That money for the rural affairs budget has, so far, not been returned, so my amendment should allow the Government to clarify how the money that has been allocated for the agriculture budget has been used. We are disappointed that that money—which was supposedly ring fenced—has not been returned to the budget. That further proves the point that ring-fenced money is very important to Scottish agriculture. I thank Rhoda Grant for supporting the amendment.

The Scottish Conservatives will support all the amendments in the group. Ariane Burgess’s amendment 137 is particularly important, because communities are often left behind in relation to afforestation. It is an excellent amendment.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 157, as he described, would provide further scrutiny, clarity and accountability. It would also help everyone to be part of, and to become involved in, the concept of the bill.