Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 132 would require ministers to publish a timetable for regulations—including information on what regulations are planned for the following two years, when any draft regulations will be published, whether any regulations are to be introduced as a package, and any other relevant information. This important amendment is designed to improve parliamentary scrutiny by ensuring that the Parliament is aware of, and given the opportunity to scrutinise effectively, upcoming suites of secondary legislation. In its stage 1 report, the committee called on the Scottish Government

“to keep it updated on the number of instruments, policy detail and timetable for the secondary legislation over the course of 2024 and 2025.”

Amendments 139, 168, 172 and 184, which were lodged by Tim Eagle, amendment 156, which was lodged by Beatrice Wishart, and amendments 77, 87 and 90, which were lodged by Rhoda Grant, seek to strengthen the Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the bill by confirming that regulations in the bill will fall under the affirmative procedure.

I move amendment 132.

Just to summarise, I am again disappointed that the Government is not willing to give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise effectively the upcoming suites of secondary legislation, particularly in relation to my amendment. I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s comment that she wants to co-develop any future schemes, but we have waited more than six years for this bill to come to fruition. Farmers have been waiting, but movement has been snail paced and glacial. If we do not struggle, we will not make any progress.

We have come forward with these amendments after listening to evidence from people wanting us to consider the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. We have listened to people. I am just very disappointed, and I will continue to support all the amendments in the group.

I press amendment 132.

The Scottish Government believes that we should put our trust in it to address all the issues that everybody is concerned about. We have heard from farmers, stakeholders, those in the supply chain, those who are concerned about climate change and those who have pointed out that local people do not have enough affordable local housing to allow them to stay in the areas where they work and live, do not have access to connectivity and do not have access to, say, bus transport to let them get to work and other places. We have heard that this Government has been letting them down. This amendment explicitly sets out that, as part of this agriculture and rural communities bill, a fund should be set up to deal with those issues where rural and island communities have been let down.

I press amendment 133.

Will the cabinet secretary comment on the committee evidence session in which high-quality food was described as

“unadulterated produce that comes out 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.]

That does not represent high quality. Although we want to have an aspiration for farmers and crofters to produce high-quality food, it is important that we define what high quality means in terms of food production. Will the cabinet secretary support and work with me in order to potentially lodge a stage 3 amendment in that vein?

The cabinet secretary must understand why members of the committee and others have lodged amendments of this nature. We asked for more clarity and detail on the rural support plan, which we did not get and we were not provided with. Evidence suggests that others who work in and around the sector agreed with us. That is why many of these amendments have been lodged. However, the cabinet secretary is now telling us that the detail will come at stage 3. I want it to go on the record that I would have appreciated having had sight of your intentions. You can understand why we have lodged these amendments.

Yes, but we have had a commitment up to the end of the financial year, plus there is the uplift from the Bew review. When you come back for the discussions and collaborative working that you want to do with the committee on the amendments relating to the rural support plan, will you also come forward with what the Scottish Government will commit in future budgets, beyond what you have already committed to?

I would like to get some more detail on that point. Are you saying that the real living wage is part of that and that your aim is for that to be adopted by the agricultural sector and not be set by the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board?

Amendment 131 would remove development in EU law and policy from matters that a rural support plan must have regard to. Scottish farmers deserve a plan that works for them rather than one that suits the Scottish National Party’s plan for independence as set out by the cabinet secretary.

The bill is a chance to break free from the one-size-fits-all approach of the EU’s common agricultural policy. Therefore, Scottish ministers should use their powers to create a bespoke approach to agriculture funding for Scottish farmers. Farmers and producers are already held back by the Scottish Government’s decision not to embrace gene-editing technology, which would bring widespread benefits across the industry and strengthen our food security.

Those constitutional games not only create barriers within the UK internal market; crucially, they hinder farmers’ ability to provide food for Scotland. Instead of using the agricultural industry as a constitutional pawn, Scottish ministers should embrace this opportunity to create agricultural policy that puts the needs of Scottish farmers and producers at the top.

NFU Scotland supports amendment 131 and says that there are valid concerns in relation to the reliance on developments in the law and policy of the EU while preparing and amending the rural support plan. Major divergence from current practice could cause issues in relation to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020; therefore, NFU Scotland wishes the requirement to consider EU law and policy removed. Furthermore, Scottish Land & Estates agrees with the amendment.

With regard to the other amendments in the group, I will support a number of them, but I want to highlight Ariane Burgess’s amendment 48 on behalf of the Green Party. I will be very happy to support that.

As I have stated, I am happy to support the amendment. However, why do you think that the NFUS did not consider the proposal to be required? It said that it would not be helpful to include a list of such producers in the bill, as it could result in a negative consequence for those not listed. I do not know which types of producers the NFUS thinks would not be on the list, but did you consider that issue? I am concerned that the Government is going to agree with the NFUS, but I want to state that I think that your amendment is important.

Amendment 133 would create a rural community wealth fund to provide funding for projects in rural Scotland on an application-by-application basis.

Rural communities have been tagged on to this bill as an afterthought by the Scottish Government. It was noted in the committee’s stage 1 report that

“the Scottish Government should be more explicit about the ways in which financial support would be used to develop rural communities”.

If the SNP is serious about supporting rural communities in the bill, it must ensure that the resources are there to provide the housing, transport, local day-to-day services and connectivity that will encourage people to move and work in local areas.

I move amendment 133.