Chamber and committees

Amendment 192 seeks to provide additional clarity regarding the persons in respect of whom ministers may make regulations relating to continuing professional development.

To pick up on Richard Leonard’s point, stakeholders have queried the meaning of “farmers” in section 27(1)(a) and have asked whether that would include or exclude farm workers and other persons—in particular, family members—who contribute to activities on the farm or in the business. By proposing to expand section 27(1) to include

“persons who work in agriculture (whether as employees or otherwise)”,

I seek to clarify that provision and ensure that we do not leave behind anyone who is making a contribution in agriculture, while providing ministers with flexibility in relation to the design of CPD.

I am making a point about the timings for stage 2. I accept the point that you are making, convener—I am not disputing that. I am saying that perhaps the more urgent question is how we get through stage 2. We need guidance from you on when our sittings will be. That is the more pressing question.

Obviously, it is up to the cabinet secretary how she wishes to engage with the committee, and my point, which is more of a practical one, is perhaps something that we can return to at the end of the meeting. My understanding is that we have a relatively short time available to us to complete stage 2—we need to do that either before or at the end of this month, I think. I would probably argue against innovations to procedure, but we need some idea of when our sittings will be, to ensure that we get through our existing business on the stage 2 amendments.

I wonder whether the point about redistribution is also relevant to the formation of a rural support plan. Will the impact of agricultural policy on redistribution be a factor in forming a rural support plan?

I look forward to hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say about the amendments before I decide whether to move mine. However, the aim of amendment 119 is simply to ensure effective consultation with those impacted or affected by the rural support plan. In order for the plan to deliver the desired outcomes, there needs to be effective discussion and consultation in advance of its publication and in advance of subsequent amendments to the plan.

I do not claim to know whether an engineer would be required, but one of the issues that has been raised with me is that fishermen in my constituency understand that the approved supplier is in Aberdeen. Is that the case? Has the situation been island proofed, given the complications and potentially costly delays that might be involved if somebody in Barra or Tiree has to deal with someone in Aberdeen?

I do not want to get this wrong, but I would be surprised if such engineers exist in the islands. They may do, and I do not want to do them a disservice, but have you checked that those people exist?

You have. Okay. Thank you.

You have touched on this already, but will you say a bit more about the use of that data? Will it enable you to help with the situation that fishermen face by improving the data that is available to the Government and, therefore, its policy? I realise that you cannot foresee the future, but can you mention some of the ways in which the Government feels that this might be beneficial to fishermen?

I want to raise a couple of specific technical issues that fishermen in my constituency have raised with me. I suppose that those issues have a wider application. They are about the reliability, as you understand it, of the equipment that would be installed, given the extreme conditions that it would operate in, and avoiding situations in which fishermen have long waits to get items repaired.