Chamber and committees

Yes.

Is it, therefore, the aim of the Government that, in the rural support plan, you will set out indicative budgets for future years?

I am pleased to speak to amendment 92 and my other amendments in the group. Section 1 sets out the overarching objectives of agricultural policy. Those objectives will influence the rural support plan, which is required to set out the expected use of the powers in section 4 to provide support through various payments and other schemes that will implement agricultural policy in practice. As such, section 1 describes the overall purpose of the bill and its various provisions.

As drafted, the objectives include a mix of outcomes and processes that seek to achieve those outcomes, but the link to the implementation of policies is currently unclear. The aim of amendment 92 is to include a clearer purpose clause that provides a clearer link between the overarching policy objectives and the rural support plan. My intention was that the overarching purpose clause would include the objectives rather than just refer to them, but I was conscious that members would be lodging amendments to the various objectives.

As members know, the bill as introduced includes four objectives. They are broadly appropriate, but the separation of

“sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices”

from

“the production of high-quality food”

is, in many ways, problematic. Agricultural practices are the means of producing high-quality food, so there is very much a link to how we produce that high-quality food and other farm products.

Amendment 95 proposes that sustainable food production become a clear overarching purpose of agricultural policy through the first objective of the production of high-quality food

“using sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices”.

I appreciate that agricultural practices are also deployed to produce products that are not, or do not directly become, food, including farm products such as feedstuff for animals, crops for energy or fibre, and animals that are kept as pets or for riding. My amendment addresses that through the addition of the term “and other farm products”.

Amendment 3 seeks to add “to improve animal welfare” to the overarching objectives of agricultural policy. Although the welfare of animals is referred to in the bill’s long title, that does not have any legal authority, so it is an omission to exclude animal welfare from the objectives. Amendment 3 and, in a slightly longer way, amendment 22 seek to address that.

We have a moral obligation to the millions of sentient animals in our food systems to ensure that we have the highest possible standards. As I said in the stage 1 debate, Scotland’s farmers cannot and will not compete in a race to the bottom on pricing standards. High-quality food is produced to the highest possible animal welfare standards, and the bill’s objectives should reflect that. If we placed an obligation on our farmers and crofters to adapt to, for example, a new regulation on animal welfare and health, supporting them to make those improvements would be perfectly reasonable and a legitimate use of agricultural support.

Amendments 98 to 100 seek to strengthen the wording of an existing objective—objective (c)—for a number of reasons. First, the use of the word “facilitation” in objective (c) is, in my view, too weak. Secondly, the use of the phrase “on-farm nature restoration” is flawed in two respects. It is limited to restoration, but protection is also important and a valid objective. It is also limited through the use of the phrase “on-farm”. Although the activities that may be supported will be on farms, the impacts, consequences and objectives of those activities might be wider. For example, species that are allowed to breed successfully on a farm will expand to wider areas, and good habitat management on a farm will have an impact on water quality and flood management downstream. Therefore, I do not believe that the use of the phrase “on-farm” is necessary, and it could have consequences for the range of activities that might be supported that, ultimately, go beyond farms.

The wording of the terms relating to climate and nature should relate more directly to those that are used in similar legislation, such as the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991. That is what amendments 99 and 100 seek to achieve.

On amendments 103 to 106, evidence that was given to the committee during stage 1 shows that there is widespread concern about the narrowly drawn list of objectives. Beyond the overarching objectives, some detailed purposes are set out in schedule 1. In comparison, the Agriculture (Wales) Act 2023 provides additional guidance on the interpretation and application of its land management objectives. Amendments 103 to 106 recognise that detailed purposes are set out in schedule 1, but they adopt the Welsh approach of providing further explanation of how the overarching objectives should be interpreted.

Amendment 107 proposes that a duty be introduced on ministers to act in accordance with the objectives of the bill. Similar wording on duties exists in other Scottish legislation.

Finally, you will be pleased to know, convener, amendment 108 would provide by regulation the power to amend the objectives of agricultural policy, but any such amendments must be made by affirmative procedure.

I move amendment 92.

On amendment 92, enabling bills such as this one would give Governments wide-ranging powers; they are a powerful tool for those Governments and will be for a long time into the future. The cabinet secretary might be clear about the purpose and the link with the objectives, but the bill is not, and it is by no means certain that a future Government would be so clear, too. My purpose clause seeks to focus the powers conferred by the bill on the delivery of the objectives, instead of giving some future Government completely free rein, which, in my view, the bill currently does.

I would just note that Ariane Burgess’s concerns about the wording of the clause could be dealt with at stage 3. It would be deeply disappointing to oppose the view of Scotland’s environmental groups on the need for a clear purpose clause in the bill by opposing the amendment on the basis of the need for a tweak in the wording at stage 3.

Contrary to what the cabinet secretary has said, amendment 94 does not detract from the importance of food production. Instead, it recognises that agricultural practices are the means to produce high-quality food and that, as a result, they should be carried out in a sustainable way.

On amendments 103 to 106, the cabinet secretary says that the wording of the objectives is wide. In my view, the objectives are vague, and we do not really know what some of the aims are. Effectively, the cabinet secretary is saying that everything and anything proposed in the amendments is already covered in some way by the objectives, but that is far from clear. For example, what does the Government mean by

“enabling rural communities to thrive”?

That could cover a multitude of areas. I understand why Governments want vague objectives—it gives them free rein to do whatever they want when drafting the rural support plan—but providing more detail and definitions will ensure that specific issues are covered, instead of our operating as suggested by the cabinet secretary, who says that such issues might be covered.

As for the issue of animal welfare, I did not hear any objections to amendments 3 and 22, which is a welcome recognition that, if we do not include a commitment to animal welfare in the objectives, we cannot guarantee that the standards that apply now will always apply, let alone be improved. In my view, that was a clear omission by the Government in the bill as introduced. I am conscious that amendment 22 is similar to my amendment 3, so, if amendment 22 is agreed to, I will not need to move amendment 3.

I will end on a positive note by thanking the cabinet secretary very much for supporting amendment 108, and I hope that the committee will do so, too.

I press amendment 92.

Amendment 109, in my name, seeks to introduce a duty on ministers to set and achieve specific targets and indicators in relation to the bill’s overarching objectives. It is important to stress that the amendment does not seek to set those targets in the text of the bill; it merely places the duty in the bill, while the targets themselves would be set by ministers through secondary legislation. That would get the balance right between not making the primary legislation too restrictive and making it clear that there should be measurable indicators and that those should, ultimately, be voted on by Parliament to provide appropriate scrutiny.

Amendment 150, in my name, seeks to ensure that the distributional impact of future support is assessed and transparent in relation to budgets, farm size and income. It also seeks to ensure that the application of the fairer Scotland duty, as set out in part 1 of the Equality Act 2010, is also reported on and transparent.

Having regard to the impacts of policy in terms of distributional inequalities is a key aspect of a just transition to a future net zero world. The amendment would serve to ensure that, as agricultural policy encourages a transition, it does so in a just and fair way.

The common agricultural policy 2023-27 includes a mandatory redistribution of income support, with EU countries required to dedicate at least 10 per cent of their direct payments to the redistributive income support tool, increasing the income of small and medium-sized farmers. In contrast, the modest amendment that I have lodged does not go as far as that; it would simply place a duty on ministers to outline the distributional impact of funding schemes and to consider methods of redistribution in scheme designs.

I hope, therefore, that the committee will be able to support both amendments 109 and 150.

I move amendment 109.

The cabinet secretary said that there was a lot to cover in her comments—she was certainly correct. She has made a number of commitments to address some of the long-standing concerns that there have been about the lack of direction in relation to the rural support plan. However, as you said, convener, much of that should have been covered by amendments from the cabinet secretary at stage 2.

Turning to the amendments that are before us, I note that the aim of setting out the rural support plan in regulations is to improve the scrutiny that it receives. High levels of scrutiny are warranted because of the amount of public money that is involved. We want to avoid a situation in which the Government is required to produce a plan but it simply gets laid before Parliament and receives little scrutiny. The Government might meet the terms of the legislation as they currently stand, but the public interest would be ill served. The question that we need to ask is: who benefits from a lack of scrutiny? It is certainly not in the interest of Parliament or of the public for a plan simply to be nodded through. The cabinet secretary said that one concern is the potential for Parliament to veto the plan, but I have to say that, if the Government cannot get its plan through Parliament, that says more about the plan itself.

On amendment 35 and the timescales for the rural support plan, the reality is that, as a number of members have said, we should have had a draft rural support plan before now. The Government has known for years that that is needed, so it cannot be delayed any further. Stability and certainty are what our agriculture sector needs most, so we need to put the plan in front of it as soon as possible, with no more delays. The cabinet secretary said that, on the one hand, having the rural support plan made by regulation would cause delays but that, on the other, she opposes an amendment that sets a clear timescale in which the plan would be brought forward.

On amendments 30 and 31, I would be happy to meet the cabinet secretary to discuss how fast she thinks she can go in the important area of multiyear funding, with a view to either lodging an alternative set of amendments to 30 and 31 or bringing back the existing amendments. I stress that there is a need to have, at the very least, robust and indicative multiyear funding commitments within the rural support plan. Local authorities often have indicative multiyear funding in their budgets, and I see no reason why the Scottish Government cannot have, at the very least, indicative multiyear funding, to give some reassurance to the sector.

I will be happy to discuss amendment 115 and the consequential amendment 113 further with the cabinet secretary, along with amendment 37, on consultation.

Finally, all that amendment 128 does is provide greater detail. History has shown that a bill without the specifics of a plan could end up being a very lightweight document. We need robust governance in the public interest. Allowing the Government too much leeway, so that it can produce a plan that is not worth the name, is not in anyone’s interest. There is precedent for the specific approach in the climate change plan, which is set out in legislation. Again, I am happy to discuss amendment 128 with the cabinet secretary.

I am not entirely sure, from the exchange that we have just had, which amendments the cabinet secretary is willing to discuss further and which are just not to be taken forward. I might press a number of amendments that the cabinet secretary has indicated that she wishes to discuss further, but that is simply because I am quite lost. Rachael Hamilton was right when she said that a grenade has been thrown at the amendments. A lot of this detail should have been set before the committee long before stage 2.

I press amendment 28.

I will not move it, as I hope to have further discussions about it.

Amendment 112 not moved.

As I indicated, amendment 130 is linked to the success of previous amendments that are not supported by the committee, so I will withdraw it.

On the other amendments, I note that my name is next to amendment 42 as a supporter, and I note that I lodged a similar amendment. I hope that the committee will agree to add biodiversity to the list of objectives, as that is incredibly important.

On my amendment 45, the cabinet secretary has assumed that certain decisions would be made, but the reality is that those decisions would still be entirely in the hands of ministers, and ministers would simply have to have regard to other sources of funding when making particular decisions. The aim of the amendment is to avoid duplication of funding in order to get best value for the public pound, but it could also give scope for adding value by, for example, enabling match funding from other sources to increase the scope and scale of projects. I believe that that is something that should be considered.

On amendment 49, I take on board the commitment from the cabinet secretary to bring forward proposals on improving consultation, so I will not move the amendment when the time comes for me to do so, but I reserve the right to bring the matter back at stage 3 if those proposals do not go far enough. I hope that, in developing the proposals, the cabinet secretary considers carefully the expert bodies that I have listed in my amendment.

Amendment 130, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 4 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 42 moved—[Elena Whitham]—and agreed to.

Amendment 131 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

I assume that the same challenges exist in Edinburgh, Philip Ritchie, although you do not have the geographical challenges such as having to get from Hawick to Galashiels. Why do you think that the businesses with all these vacancies often appear to be reluctant to give opportunities to the disabled?

That is helpful. I will move on to a different subject with a question that I asked the employability partnerships in the previous panel. Every week when I speak to businesses one of the biggest issues is the challenge of recruitment. Businesses cannot fill vacancies, but we still have the significant disability employment gap: the two things are completely disconnected. What do we have to do? Why do so many employers not get the business case for closing the employment gap? There is a huge potential workforce out there at a time when businesses are struggling to fill vacancies. Why do business not understand the opportunities? What are the barriers to their understanding?