Chamber and committees

Are there any budgets outwith those that you can say anything about that are relevant to the Government’s aims for the islands?

Given that the Government is working with a fixed budget, we are probably entering into a sterile debate if we are asking, as some have, why you did not argue for more from health to go into agriculture. No doubt, as we speak, there are Opposition members or other committees asking a minister why they were not arguing for more to be taken from agriculture to be put into health.

Instead, I will ask about the issue of long-term certainty that you alluded to and how there will be less of that in the environment ahead. What is the impact of that on budgeting decisions on agriculture?

I will ask first about funding for the islands programme. It is welcome that, despite the capital climate, there is capital spend available, but can you say more about the budget lines and how they are being utilised for the islands programme, please?

The convener raised a point about “have regard to”. When it comes to the rural support plan, what should ministers have regard to? I have asked this in a previous context and I know that there is a well-understood legal meaning of “have regard to”, but what is your understanding of that? What should be had regard to and how should that be made enforceable?

As others have alluded, we are talking about half the picture. We are talking about the primary legislation but, obviously, there is secondary legislation to come, which will fill out much of the detail.

I am interested in how progress against the objectives can be measured. What could be done in either primary or secondary legislation to help to measure progress and ensure that we evaluate the Government’s progress against the objectives?

I want to ask Jonnie Hall to build on some of his earlier points about the link between production and support. I appreciate that it is a link, not a tie. However, we heard earlier from Lesley Mitchell about the regime that is likely to exist for, say, English hill farmers, so there is a distinction in policy being made, or likely to be made, in the two countries. How do we ensure that we can act in a way that meets Scottish needs on this and that we are not pressured into doing something that breaks that link completely in the way that may be happening in England?

Before you do, convener, I just want to come in, as that point of view could go unchallenged. As we have heard, it is quite useful to put many things into secondary, rather than primary, legislation. The point is not a statement that should go unchallenged.

Jonnie Hall, on your point about the importance of producing food, you have highlighted to us in the past the importance of the connection between support and production. Can you say a bit more about that with regard to producing quality food for the country? Other places have gone down a different route and broken that connection. In the past, you have mentioned the need to ensure that the Subsidy Control Act 2022 does not frustrate us in pursuing a different path or ploughing a different furrow. Will you say a bit more about the connection between support and production and what scope there is for Scotland to do something different?

A few people have touched on the difficulties that farmers have in transforming what they do for want of information about the support that they might receive or the adequacy of such support. Do people have views on the other bit of that, which is that the Scottish Government and, more important, Scottish farmers have no idea what the funding envelope from the UK will be beyond 2025? How does that impact on farmers’ thinking and decision making?

For clarity, I do not know whether other members have had much of a chance to speak yet—some have—but I was wanting in; I make that point.

I want to ask about the definition of sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices. I realise that others have touched on that and we have talked around it in the context of other legislation, too. There is a balancing act between putting definitions in the bill and being flexible in order to avoid omissions from that list and the Government having to continually come back to the Parliament to change the legislation every time that there is a demand for it to do something new. How do we get that balance right when defining sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices in the bill?